Strictly speaking, international law is not a body of worldlaw, but a body of rules which is recognized by each civilized power as a part of its domestic law. "International law," said Mr. Justice Gray of the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion,1 "is part of our law,2 and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and as an evidence of these to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is."

An international tribunal independent of the governments of particular states, enforcing principles of international law, and adjudicating disputes between different nations, is as yet an unrealized dream of those who hope for the establishment of world peace. Nevertheless, it is contended that we have made gigantic strides in that direction, although the complete ideal may never be attained. From time to time during the nineteenth century, the United States has resorted to the practice of arbitration for the purpose of adjusting controversies with foreign countries. The first treaty signed with Great Britain in 1794 after the conclusion of peace provided for three tribunals or commissions to arbitrate certain questions which threatened to bring on a new conflict between the two countries; and many irritating controversies over the boundaries between the United States and Canada and the fishing rights of the respective countries have been adjusted by way of arbitration.

International Law Digest (8 vols., Government Printing Office). Even though making no attempt to go into the technicalities of these subjects, the teacher should impress upon the student the notion that international law is not merely a body of theories elaborated by the enthusiasts for international peace.

'175 U. S. R., 677.

2 The Constitution recognizes the law of nations by authorizing Congress to define offences against it.

in the harbor of New York and thus run the risk not only of serious commercial loss, but also of a costly war.

It is impossible, of course, in a treatise of this character to go into the content of international law at any length, but some notion of the principles which it embodies seems necessary to give definiteness and reality to the statement that international law is not a collection of theories and moral principles, but a substantial body of rules and regulations applicable to the conduct of intercourse between states. In international law we find laid down the principles defining what may be regarded as an independent state (which is the "person" or "subject" of international law); the fundamental rights and duties of states; the methods by which new states come into existence and are recognized; the character of the property of a state; methods of acquiring property; the territorial waters of a state; the privileges and immunities of diplomatic agents; the jurisdiction of a state over aliens within its borders; piracy; grounds and conditions upon which one state may interfere in the affairs of other states; principles of expatriation and naturalization; the making and abrogating of treaties; arbitration, mediation, and acts mitigating the rigors of war. These matters are treated under that branch of international law known as the law of peace.

Even the practices of war are regulated by well-accepted rules. The law of war, for example, governs such topics as the declaration of war, non-combatants, privateering, the prisoners of war and their treatment, the instruments of war and bombardment of towns, and the use of explosives; the effect of war upon the property of belligerent states, their subjects and the subjects of neutral states; the effect of military occupation upon property on land; the rights and duties of neutrals; contraband of war; blockade; right of search; and prize courts.

On all of these topics of international law definite information is to be secured from decisions of courts, treaties, statutes, official documents, and authoritative writers; and while a variety of opinions may be entertained by the legists of different nations, it must be remembered that lawyers and courts are by no means always agreed as to what the domestic law is on any particular point.1

'The student will do well to refer at this point to the monumental collection of material on international law prepared by Professor J. B. Moore,

Strictly speaking, international law is not a body of worldlaw, but a body of rules which is recognized by each civilized power as a part of its domestic law. "International law," said Mr. Justice Gray of the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion, "is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and as an evidence of these to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is."

An international tribunal independent of the governments of particular states, enforcing principles of international law, and adjudicating disputes between different nations, is as yet an unrealized dream of those who hope for the establishment of world peace. Nevertheless, it is contended that we have made gigantic strides in that direction, although the complete ideal may never be attained. From time to time during the nineteenth century, the United States has resorted to the practice of arbitration for the purpose of adjusting controversies with foreign countries. The first treaty signed with Great Britain in 1794 after the conclusion of peace provided for three tribunals or commissions to arbitrate certain questions which threatened to bring on a new conflict between the two countries; and many irritating controversies over the boundaries between the United States and Canada and the fishing rights of the respective countries have been adjusted by way of arbitration.

International Law Digest (8 vols., Government Printing Office). Even though making no attempt to go into the technicalities of these subjects, the teacher should impress upon the student the notion that international law is not merely a body of theories elaborated by the enthusiasts for international peace.

'175 U. S. R., 677.

The Constitution recognizes the law of nations by authorizing Congress to define offences against it.

The most famous case of arbitration in American history was that of "the Alabama Claims," which grew out of depredations committed upon American merchant vessels during the Civil War by ships which Great Britain allowed to be constructed in British ports which were used as a base of operations for the Confederate government. After a good deal of angry dispute, the two countries agreed by a treaty of 1871 to submit the whole matter to a tribunal composed of one citizen of the United States, one British subject, and three other members, named by the King of Italy, the President of Switzerland, and the Emperor of Brazil, respectively. This tribunal met in Geneva, and after prolonged sessions it came to the conclusion that with regard to certain vessels the British government had violated or neglected its duties as a neutral power; and an award of damages aggregating $15,500,000 was rendered in favor of the United States, and paid, in spite of the protest of the British member of the tribunal, and some feeling of resentment in Great Britain.1

The United States, therefore, had had a long experience in the peaceful adjustment of controversies, when it was invited, in 1898, in common with the other powers of the world, by the Tsar Nicholas II, of Russia, to participate in a conference at the Hague for the purpose of discussing the subject of reducing excessive armaments. The first Hague conference, which met in 1899, was unable to come to an agreement on the main question, and merely recommended the nations to examine the possibility of limiting armed forces by land and sea. The powers however, agreed to recognize the right of any nation, without prejudice, to offer its services to countries at war with one another, as an aid in friendly mediation. The first conference, furthermore, recommended parties unable to come to an agreement by negotiation to submit matters not involving national honor or vital interests to an investigation by an impartial com

1In addition to resorting to arbitration in a large number of cases, the government of the United States has been instrumental in preventing war, and in restoring peace, by offering to countries on the eve of war or already at war its services in settling the dispute or in terminating the armed conflict. For example, in 1871, it tendered its good offices in a war between Spain and certain South American republics, and secured an agreement to an armistice which eventually resulted in a treaty of peace. In 1905 President Roosevelt was instrumental in bringing the Russo-Japanese war to a close.

mission of inquiry, to be instituted by an arrangement between the parties to the controversy. Finally, the conference agreed upon the establishment of a permanent court of arbitration to consist of not more than four persons from each country, selected by the respective nations from among their citizens, "of recognized competence in international law, enjoying the highest moral reputation." Whenever two powers are in a controversy, they may submit the issue to a tribunal selected from this long list of eminent jurists. In common with the other powers of the world the United States has concluded with many countries arbitration treaties, agreeing to submit to arbitration questions which do not affect national independence or honor.1

The results of the first Hague conference led President Roosevelt, in 1904, to propose a second meeting of the powers; but he yielded the honor of issuing the call to Nicholas II, who in the following year invited the nations of the world to participate in the discussion of certain important questions, including the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the regulation of warfare on land and sea. The conference (1907) could not agree upon any plan for reducing military and naval expenditures or establishing general compulsory arbitration. It devoted itself largely to the regulation of the actual conduct of war, the treatment of prisoners, the bombardment of towns, the rights of neutrals, etc., and dismissed the question of limiting armaments by a resolution declaring that "it is highly desirable that the governments should resume a serious study of the question."

1 See Readings, p. 305, for an illustration.