Page images
PDF
EPUB

consideration of the act as a whole, the article in question only provides for those cases in which the rule of uti possidetis could not serve as a guide. Likewise the arguments which Mr. Barbagelata draws from the decrees of the Argentine Government of November 29, 1813, and of March 7 and September 10, 1814, are hardly conclusive, for these decrees have, in fact, changed or attempted to change the administrative division of certain states forming part of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata. This does not in any way contravene the rule of uti possidetis since there was no question of applying it to provincial subdivisions, which became constitutional divisions after the independence of the states, but merely to the new states themselves.

One other case is cited by Mr. Barbagelata. He adds, indeed, that on the occasion of the protocol of a conference in which the delegates of Ecuador and Colombia met in order to trace the delimitations of the respective boundaries of their countries, the delegates of Eucador protested against the application to that delimitation of the rule of uti possidetis. This argument does not seem to have any greater weight than the preceding ones. It can not be claimed, indeed, that the isolated and individual opinion of a single delegate will suffice to overthrow a rule which has been applied in countless cases.

To conclude, there is a last case on which Mr. Barbagelata relies, but it does not seem to us any more conclusive than the other cases. It is the decision of the King of Spain on March 16, 1891, fixing the boundaries of Colombia and Venezuela. This decision, in fact, took care to announce that its sole object was to remove the obscurity in the Royal Decree of February 19, 1786, fixing those boundaries. No better proof can be had of the value of the rule of uti possidetis as an American basis of delimitation.

Mr. Barbagelata claims, moreover, to find in the arbitral decisions which have been made with respect to the delimitation of the states of Central America a disregard for the rule of uti possidetis, but these are mere assertions which the author has not justified by citing the central point of the decisions in question.

It remains for us to consider now whether this rule of uti possidetis, generally followed in fact, was really a practical one.

Without doubt it was so at the period at which it was adopted, for the states had no need of any more precise delimitation, and this rule had, moreover, the advantage of harmonizing with the local sentiment which was formed in each administrative division. But it at the same time

gave rise to an inconvenience the indefiniteness of the former administrative divisions, an indefiniteness which was the occasion of many conflicts in future times. The result is that at the present day it is scarcely admissible in the tracing of definite boundary lines, and a new rule is required for the solution of the boundary questions, which are still awaiting settlement. Arbitration has been recommended. This procedure is at the present day followed, but it must be recognized that more than once it has not worked to the full satisfaction of the parties who have had recourse to it. In order that it may work with success it is necessary that the arbiter take into consideration objective principles of real practical value. It seems to us in this connection that by taking account, in due proportion, of the popular will, of the geographic conditions of the territory, of the economic possibilities, and of the effective sovereignty exercised over them by the states, a rule will be obtained which will be at once in harmony with the demands of modern principles and with the necessities of the New World.

The work of Mr. Barbagelata, which is an important contribution to the study of the question of boundaries, contains other subjects than the rule of uti possidetis which it would likewise be interesting to examine. The limits of this short review unfortunately prevent us delaying longer over it. A. ALVAREZ.

British Rights at Sea under the Declaration of London. By F. E. Bray. London P. S. King & Son. 1911. 99 pp. (One shilling.)

This brochure presents in a sane and intelligent manner the effect of the Declaration of London upon British rights during peace and war.

There were certain things the London Naval Conference did not accomplish, in one instance because the matter was not germane to the object of its convening, in others because no common agreement could be reached by the great naval Powers represented.

at sea.

The first matter was the abolition of the capture of private property This is a matter advocated officially by the United States, but it was not a question incorporated in the subject-matter of the Conference. It is not probable that it would have received favorable action by the Conference, as all action of the Conference which went towards the formation of the Declaration of London required unanimous consent. It is possible if the matter had been presented by the United States that this country would have been seconded by Italy, Germany, Austria

nungary and Holland, and opposed by Great Britain, France, Spain, Japan and Russia. Of course, this would have left the matter as it was left at the Second Hague Conference, when twenty-one states voted with the United States and twenty-two either voted against or abstained from voting by absence or abstention. It may be still said that the nations of the world are in a general way equally divided upon the subject.

Of the subjects brought before the Conference as germane to the subjects of the call, but upon which no decision was reached, the first was "The Question whether Domicile or Nationality should be Accepted as the Test of Enemy Character." This is really a case of little moment, Germany laying the most stress upon it, as it wants always to retain so far as possible the nationality of absent Germans in war or peace.

The second question was that of the conversion of merchantmen into warships on the high seas. This was opposed by the United States and Great Britain as affording opportunities for future Alabamas. It was favored by Germany, whose naval policy seems linked to the distribution of merchantmen in many parts of the world, to enjoy immunity as merchantmen, but secure a ready means of transformation by proceeding upon the high seas and chameleon-like assume the rôle of a commerce destroyer. The want of conclusion as to this matter will permit such conversion for those favoring it as they claimed to do and expected to do before the Conference was called into being.

Mr. Bray, whose connection with the preliminary arrangements for the London Conference, and familiarity with its proceedigs, enables him to speak with a knowledge wanting in many articles and pamphlets upon the subject, has given us a very good and clear exposition of the Conference and its resulting Declaration which will be useful not only for the "man in the street," but for many others whose pretence of knowledge is very much greater.

Concerning the accompanying report of the Drafting Committee, duly accepted by the Conference, he says:

*

It is the recognized Continental practice that such a document should be submitted to and accepted by, the authority which sanctions the law or treaty with which it deals. The object of the report is to explain how a particular phrase or rule came to be adopted, and its existence is a valuable guarantee against an unexpected decision.

It is to be hoped that the work of Mr. Bray, though written for Great Britain, may have a circulation in this country, for although the House

of Lords has rejected the Declaration it will no doubt be resubmitted and it may become the duty of our Department of State to secure a ratification from the Senate on our part as a signatory Power.

C. H. STOCKTON.

The Law of the Air. By Harold D. Hazeltine. London: University of London Press, 1911. vi, 152 pp.

This is a publication of a series of three lectures delivered in the University of London in December, 1910. The author is fellow and law lecturer at Emanuel College, Cambridge. He has performed a valuable service in gathering the material already at hand and digesting it in logical form. Upon this he has superimposed his choice of principles. He lays great stress upon the importance of the controversy whether the state has full sovereignty in the airspace over its territory, and, in the title to his first lecture, characterizes it as the "Fundamental Problem (pp. 1-54). He unqualifiedly favors the sovereignty theory as opposed to that of total or partial freedom, and maintains that "recognition of each state's full right of sovereignty will not be an obstacle to the proper and legitimate development of aerial navigation, while at the same time it will safeguard state and private rights and interests" (p. 51). Later in the book he again refers to "the first great and fundamental question," whether the sovereignty view shall prevail in international relations (p. 141).

We think that the author has been rather obsessed with the importance of this question. One might very well be inclined to draw away from abstract reasoning on a topic which, at best, is without much historical precedent. It has become deeply controversial, and, after all, does not of itself accomplish much in satisfying the need of a wise regulation of aerial navigation, locally and internationally, when once it has assumed sufficient importance. If maritime law were devoted principally to the discussion of the theory of how far a state could exclude the ships of other states from navigating coastal waters and entering ports, it would ill suit the needs of a sea-going commerce.

Dr. Hazeltine's book is, however, scholarly throughout, and shows painstaking reflection. The second lecture (pp. 54-94) deals with the "Principles and Problems of National Law," in which judicial and legislative precedents of England, the United States and the Continent relating to private rights in the airspace are reviewed. The third lecture

(pp. 95-144) is entitled "The Principles and Problems of International Law," and deals with the attitude of the Hague Conventions and the Declaration of London toward aircraft in time of war.

Publications relating to the law of the air have increased rapidly during the past year. In view of the many set-backs which the practice of aerial navigation, in its various forms, has received, one is apt to doubt whether the great amount of literary energy expended upon the subject is justified by practical needs. It was on this account that the American Bar Association at its Boston meeting in August, 1911, refused to adopt the draft bill prepared by its committee. We note that the author refers to the draft as though it had already been adopted by the association (p. 88). At the time of the first successes of the aeroplane and the dirigible balloon, or airship, very little had been written on either the national or international legal phases of control over the airspace. Undoubtedly, a clearing had to be made upon which proper legislative and administrative action could be based. From this viewpoint the book in hand is valuable. But now that the problems are defined, it would seem, to the reviewer at least, that lawyers and publicists should await a further advance in the art and a more general use of the airspace before crystallizing their researches or reflections into definite legal rules.

ARTHUR K. KUHN.

Capture in War on Land and Sea. By Hans Wehberg, Dr. Jur. Translated from Das Beuterecht im Land und Seekriege, with an Introduction by John M. Robertson, M. P. London: P. S. King & Son. 1911. xxxv, 210 pp.

This is a small work consisting of 191 pages of text, with an introduction of 35 pages and a careful bibliography of 9 and an index covering 8 pages, making a volume of 243 pages in all.

Both introduction and text are vigorous and trenchant attacks on militarism and imperial policies, and especially on the attitude, the dangers and necessities, of England as compared with the Continental countries in this respect.

66

The introduction, which is called a Historical Review, especially urges that the argument that capture of an enemy's commerce as a means of bringing a war to an end was never a good one and is weaker now than ever."

This, it asserts, is proved by a review of English wars and treaties during the past 260 years. It particularly confutes Mr. Bowles' asser

« PreviousContinue »