1 Text in The New York Times, July 10, 1951, p. 12. For text of Joint Resolution and President’s Proclamation, see Supplement to this Journal, pp. 12–13.

2 See Kunz, Josef L., Kriegsrecht und Neutralitätsrecht (Vienna, 1935), pp. 58–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, A Treatise, Vol. II (6th ed., London, 1940),pp. 464–480; Guggenheim, P., Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts (Basle, 1950), Vol. II, pp. 819–821 Google Scholar; Philippson, C., Termination of War and Treaties of Peace (London, 1916)Google Scholar; Haas, J., Die Kriegsbeendigung nach modernem Vötkerredht (Greifswald, 1918)Google Scholar; Hoppe, E., Vie Kriegsbeendigung nach Völkerreoht und deutschem Seichsreeht (Greifswald, 1918)Google Scholar; Strupp, in Wörterbuch des Völherrechts, Vol. I, pp. 713–718.

3 Thus the unilateral declaration of the Soviets at Brest-Litovsk on February 10, 1918, that Bussia ended the war, had no legal effect. Germany answered with the denunciation of the armistice and the resumption of hostilities.

4 Thus ended the Boer War and the Ethiopian War.

5 China declared by decree of Sept. 15, 1919, that peace with Germany was re-established; she did not ratify the Versailles Treaty, but a corresponding Chinese-German agreement was signed on May 20, 1921.

6 The United States did not ratify the Paris Peace Treaties, concluded after the first World War; the war came to an end by separate peace Itreaties, e.g., as far as Germany was concerned, by the Treaty of Berlin of Aug. 25, 1921. See Hudson, Hanley O. in 39 Harvard Law Eeview (1920), p. 1020 Google Scholar; Mathews, John M. in 19 Michigan Law Review (1921), p. 819 Google Scholar. The Treaty of Sevres with Turkey of Aug. 10, 1920, was never ratified; the war came to an end only with the coming into force of the Treaty of Lausanne of July 24, 1923 (in force on Aug. 6, 1924). The present war with Japan will come to an end only with regard to those states which have signed and will ratify the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, but not with regard to those statps which did not even sign it, as the Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia, or who did not accept the invitation to the San Francisco Conference, as India and Burma, or who were not even invited to this conference, as China.

7 The German-Bussian Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed on March 3, 1918, and came into force on March 29, 1918. Bussia denounced it by decree of Nov. 3, 1918, and Germany accepted its abrogation under the Versailles Treaty. Did the war between Russia and Germany come to an end only with the coining into force of the Rapallo Treaty? See Nolde in Revue de Droit International, Vol. IV (1923), pp. 395–408.

8 Thus, the German armistice in the first World War was concluded on Nov. 11, 1918; but the war only came to an end by the coming into force of the Versailles Treaty on Jan. 10, 1920, with regard to those states which had ratified it. See the span in the ease of Turkey after the first World War (1918–1924). Considerable time elapsed between the armistices with the German Allies in the second World War and the coming into force of the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947. There has been an armistice between Palestine and the Arab States for years, but the war has not yet come to an end. At the present time we are negotiating in Korea merely a truce, not a peace treaty.

9 The Presidential communication of 1951 speaks of ending the state of war “between the United States and the Government of Germany.” But war exists in international law only between states. Governments are not persons in international law, but only organs of their states.

10 For a full investigation see Kunz, Josef L., “The Status of Occupied Germany under International Law: a Legal Dilemma,” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. III, No. 4 (December, 1950), pp. 538–565 Google Scholar, where also the complete bibliography is given. Later literature: Bourthoumieux, Ch., “La politique et le régime interalliés d’ocaupation de l’Allemagne,” in Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Vol. 54, No. 4 (1950), pp. 675–696 Google Scholar; Bindschedler, Rudolf L., “Die Völkerrechtliche Stellung Deutschlands,” in Schweiserisches Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht, Vol. VI, 1949 (1950), pp. 37–66 Google Scholar; the articles by Van Nispen tot Sevenaer and Tsoutsos, A. G. in Revue de Droit International, de Sciences Diplomatiques et Politiques, Vol. 29, No. 1 (1951), pp. 45–51, 64–86Google Scholar.

11 See, for a full discussion, Stödter, Rolf, Deutschlands Rechtslage (Hamburg, 1948)Google Scholar.

12 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 16, p. 71.

13 Manley O. Hudson writes: “For some purposes it may be said that the state of war with Germany continued; yet, in view of the political developments, this view smacks of such unreality that no dogmatic statement can be made as to some of the possible consequences.” Cases and other Materials on International Law (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 3rd ed., 1951), note on p. 618.

14 The Presidential communication of 1951 states that the “Soviet effort has been to cut the eastern third of Germany away … and to develop it as a province of the new Soviet empire.” The new construction by Bindschedler fae. tit., at p. 43) that Germany exists and has, at this time, “two Constitutions and two governments, each with a territorially limited sphere of competence,” seems to this writer to be unacceptable in law.

15 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 587 (Oct. 2, 1950), p. 530.

16 See U. S. ex rel. Hack v. Clark, 159 F. (2nd) 552; Waller v. U. S., 78 F. Supp. 816.

17 Ludecke v. Watkins (1948), 335 U. S. 160; this Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), p. 937.

18 See the much-quoted English case, Rex v. Bottrill, which has been strongly overrated as being a proof for the continuance of war under international law.

19 (1947), 164 F. (2nd) 748.

20 (1948), 167 F. (2nd) 233.

21 Thus, a British court interpreted the phrase “in the event of an armistice between Great Britain and Germany” in a will, that the German unconditional surrender constituted an “armistice,” for the purpose of interpreting this will, although not generally and not under international law. Re Orchard (1948), 1 All Eng. L. R. 203; this Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), p. 950.

22 See Hudson’s article of 1920, loc. cit.; also Stöder, op. cit., pp. 119–120; Bindsehedler, loc. cit., pp. 44–47.