The discussions on the subject of the codification of international law at the 1926 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law made clear once more that matters as to which codification was conceivable fell into two broad classes, namely:Those affecting the international relations of states in their sovereign capacity and those affecting individuals in their international relations. It will be difficult to make law control in the first class of relations; it will be less difficult to do so in the second class.

In an earlier issue of this Journal the writer called attention to some of the questions raised by the recent liquor treaties and among them to the question whether legislation is required to make Article II of the treaties effective.

The Mosul dispute involved the disposition of some 35,000 square miles of territory with a population of about 800,000. Iraq’s claim to the territory had been substantially supported by the unratified Treaty of Sèvres, but no agreement being reached at Lausanne in 1923, the treaty there negotiated and later ratified provided for maintenance of the military status quo and submission to the League of Nations Council, if nine months further negotiation proved fruitless.

To discover the origins in legal theory of the modern principle of territorial waters it is necessary to go back to the theory of the Glossators. There one finds stated for the first time in terms of law some of the elements which made the development of this principle possible.

Of the many post war problems of Europe few have presented such difficulty as the problem of Poland’s boundaries with Lithuania. Article 87 of the Treaty of Versailles reads in part, “The boundaries not laid down in the present treaty will be subsequently determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.”

The Council of the League of Nations has recently appointed a committee to report on the possible codification of international law. There are no rules in international law determining computation of time, and the prevailing uncertainty opens the door for arbitrary interpretation of the interested parties, which can lead and has often led to unnecessary differences.