1 Lauterpacht, “Revolutionary Propaganda by Governments,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, XIII (1928), p. 158.

2 For detailed discussions, see Lauterpacht, “Revolutionary Activities by Private Persons against Foreign States,” this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), pp. 105-130, and Preuss, “La repression des crimes et délits contre la sûreté des Etats étrangers,” Revue générale de droit international public, XL (1933), pp. 606-645.

3 The following statement, which expresses the viewpoint consistently maintained by the American and British Governments since the beginning of the past century, was made by Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, in reply to the complaint of the Spanish Minister that the United States was being used as a base for hostile agitation against the Spanish Government in Cuba: “The Executive of the United States has no authority to take cognizance of individual opinions and the manifestation thereof, even when taking the chape of revolutionary or seditious expressions directed against our own Government: and it is no less incompetent to pass upon the subversive character of utterances alleged to contravene the laws of another land… . This Government administers its own law in the case; it does not assume to visit with penalty conduct which, if committed within a foreign jurisdiction, might be punishable therein.” Mr. Bayard to Mr. Valera, July 31,1885, For. Rel. (1885), pp. 776, 777. See also the note of Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. Merry, Aug. 28, 1802, Annual Register (1803), p. 665, and R. e. Antonelli and Barberi (1905), 70 J. P. 4.

4 British and Foreign State Papers, XXIV (1835-36), p. 999.

5 Stämpfli, “Verbrechen gegen fremde Staaten,” Schweizerische Zeitschrift fiir Strafrecht, XLI (1928), p. 317. Cf. Schuler, Hochverratsähnliche Handlungen gegen befreundete Staaten (1909), p. 145. «

6 Bundestrafrecht, Art. 41. ‘

7 Ibid., Art. 42.

8 Preuss, op. cit., p. 614.

9 In Art. 84 of the French Penal Code of 1810 it is provided that “Quiconque aura, par des actions hostiles, non approuvées par le Gouvernement, exposé PEtat à une déclaration de guerre, sera puni de bannissement; et si la guerre s'en est suivie, de la déportation.” For similar provisions, see the following peaal codes and laws: Belgium (1867), Art. 123; Italy (1930), Art. 244; Rumania (1864), Arts. 74, 75; Luxembourg (1879), Art. 123; Spain (1928), Art. 253; Portugal (1886), Art. 148; Czechoslovakia, Law for the Defense of the Republic (March 19, 1923), §3; Bolivia (1834), Art. 160; Mexico (1931), Art. 125; Uruguay (1889), Art. 139; Paraguay (1914), Art. 139; Argentina (1921), Art. 219; Costa Rica (1924), Art. 448; Panama (1922), Art. 106.

10 For example, the German Penal Code (1871), §102, and the Austrian Penal Code (1852), § 66. See Preuss, op. cit., pp. 619-622.

11 See Lauterpacht, this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), pp. 116-118. For an excellent example of an agreement thus motivated, see the Treaty of Peace between France and Russia, signed on Oct. 8, 1801. Art. 3 provides: “Les deux parties contractantes voulant, autant qu'il est en leur pouvoir, contribuer a la tranquillity des gouvemmens respectifs, se promettent mutuellement de ne pas souffrir qu'aucun de leurs sujets, se permette d'entretenir une correspondance quelconque, soit directe, soit indirecte, avec les ennemis interieurs du gouvernement actuel des deux &ats, d'y propager des principes contraires a leurs constitutions respectives, ou d'y fomenter des troubles.” De Martens, Reeueil des prineipaux traiUs (2’ 6d.), VII, p. 387.

12 Schoen holds that state responsibility for hostile acts “follows simply from the fact that no state can protect itself from attacks of individuals who reside upon the territory of another state.” “Die viilkerrechtliche Haftung der Staaien aus unerlaubten Handlungen,” Zeitschrift fur Volkerrecht, X (1917), Erganzungshefl 2, p. 39. Both Mannzen and Schoen ignore the possibilities of jurisdiction over extraterritorial crime under the principle of state protection.

13 Sowjetunion und Volkerrecht (1932), pp. 49-50. For similar views, see Calvo, Le droit international thorique et pratique, t. Ill, p. 156; Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed., 1928), I, p. 307; von Liszt, Das Volkerrecht systematisch dargesleUt (12th ed., 1925), p. 118; De Louter, Le droit international posilif (1920), I, p. 244; and Triepel, Volkerrecht und Landesrecht (1899), p. 340.

14 Verdross, “Die völkerrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Sowjetunion für die Handlungen der russischen Kommunistischen Partei und der S. Internationale,” Zeitschrift fur offentliches Recht, IX (1930), p. 580.

15 Transactions of the Grotius Society, XIII (1928), p. 146; Stowell, Intervention in International Law (1921), p. 378.

16 Such measures, of course, constitute acts of war.

17 Verdross, op. cit., p. 578 ff.

18 See the documents collected by the Ministry of Occupied Territories in Urkunden zum Separatistenputsch im Rheinland im Herbst 1928 (Berlin, 1923), and Urkunden über die Machenschaften zur Abtrennung des Rheinlands (Berlin, 1924). See also the aide-mémoire of the German Government, Oct. 24,1923, Notenwechsel zwischen der Deutschen und der Franzosischen Regierung uber die separatistischen Umtriebe in den besetzten Gebieten (Auswertiges Ami, 1924), Nr. 2.

19 Poincaré to the German Ambassador, Nov. 6,1923, Notenwechsel zwischen der Deutschen und der Französischen Regierung, Nr. 6.

20 Poincaré to the German charge d'affaires, Dec. 12, 1923, ibid., Nr. 11.

21 Poincaré to the German charge d'affaires, Feb. 7, 1924, ibid., Nr. 17.

22 In a report on the separatist movement by Mr. Clive, British Consul in Bavaria and the Bavarian Palatinate, it is stated that: “ 1 . Overwhelming mass of population are opposed to Autonomous Government. “2. This Government could never have come into existence without French support and would immediately be driven out if French support were withdrawn.” Toynbee, Survey of International Affairs, 1924, p. 313.

23 Survey of International Affairs, 1932, p. 467.

24 Observations on the Report of the Commission of Enquiry (Foreign Office, Tokio, 1932), p. 53. Cf., Mémorandum sur le soi-disant mouvement “d'indépendance” des Trois Provinces de I'Est, Document No. 26 (Peiping, 1932).

25 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. III , p. 79.

26 Ibid., Special Supplement No. 112, p. 92.

27 The Law of Nations (Fenwick's translation, Classics of International Law), Bk. II, Ch. IV, § 54.

28 The Law of Nations (Fenwick's translation, Classics of International Law), Bk. II, Ch. IV, § 56.

29 Lauterpacht, Transactions of the Grotius Society, XIII (1928), pp. 148-149.

30 Decree of Nov. 19, 1792, Archives parlementaires, LIII (1ére sér.), p. 474.

31 See Laurent, Histoire du droit des gens et des relations internationales, XV (1869), p. 161 ff.; Redslob, Histoire des grands principes du droit des gens (1923), p. 308 ff.

32 Lord Grenville to M. Chauvelin, Dec. 31, 1792, Annual Register, State Papers (1793), p. 116.

33 M. Chauvelin to Lord Grenville, Dec. 27, 1792, ibid., p. 115.

34 Moniteur, April 16, 1793. For detailed discussions of the “guerre de propagande,” see Laurent, op. cit., pp. 161-197; Redslob, Völkerrechtliche Ideen der französischen Revolution (1916), pp. 279-285; and Basdevant, La révolution française et le droit de la guerre continentale (1901), pp. 161-176.

35 Vattel had held that the seducing of foreign subjects from their allegiance is not “honorable, and consistent with the dictates of a good conscience,” and that it is to be resorted to only in a “most just war.” Bk. Ill, Ch. X, § 180. For similar views, see Fillet, Les lots actuelles de la guerre (1898), pp. 97-98; Westlake, International Law, II (2d ed., 1913), p. 83; Fauchille, Droit international, II (1921), § 1088; and Spaight, War Rights on Land (1911). pp. 146-150.

36 Oppenheim, International Law, II (4th ed.), § 162; Hyde, International Law, II (1922), § 665; and Spaight, Air Power and War Rights (1924), pp. 308-310.

37 See Cmd. 2895 (1927), and Toynbee, Survey of International Affairs, 1927, p. 266 ff.

38 Bulletin of International News, VI (1929-30), p. 3 ff.

39 Florinsky, “Soviet Foreign Policy,” International Conciliation, No. 301, June, 1934, p. 222 ff. See the “Program of the Communist International,” adopted unanimously at the Sixth Congress, Moscow, Sept. 1, 1928. It states, in part: “The Communists consider it unnecessary to disguise their views and purposes. They openly declare that their aims can be accomplished only through an overthrow by force of the whole of the existing social order… . The hold of the bourgeoisie can be broken only by ruthless violence… .” Quoted in Foreign Affairs (N. Y.), VII (1929-30), p. 260.

40 That there is much justification for the Russian countercharges as to hostile propaganda may be seen from the report of M. Litvinov to the Central Commissariat of the U. S. S. R., Dec. 24, 1929. After calling attention to the active anti-Soviet propaganda abroad, to the interventions of 1918-20, and to the relations of foreign governments and officials with Russian émigrés and separatist governments, he states: “This obvious propaganda the stern political jurists on the other side of our frontiers strain every nerve not to notice. But let our Izvestia or Pravda or some other of our newspapers allow itself to make an irreverent remark about the capitalist system, or about some representative of a foreign government, and in its turn write about the superiority of a communist organization over a capitalist one, then there is an uproar in the whole foreign press, questions are asked in Parliament, diplomatic notes and protests fly around, the legend of ‘Soviet propaganda’ is created… .” Wheeler-Bennett, Documents on International Affairs, 1929, pp. 205-207.

41 The Times, Oct. 24, 1924. In Cmd. 2895 (1927), p. 29, this letter is attributed to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. The Zinoviev letter is reprinted, ibid., p. 30. As to the question of its authenticity, see the note by M. Rakovsky, Oct. 24, 1924, ibid., p. 32.

42 This appears to be the assumption underlying the provisions on abstention from hostile propaganda contained in the treaties or agreements concluded by Soviet Russia with Japan (1925), Great Britain (1923 and 1929), and the United States (1933). See p. 661 ff., below.

43 See Chernov, “The Politbureau: The Supreme Power in Soviet Russia,” Foreign Affairs (N. Y.), VI (1920-30), pp. 255-258. Timaschew, Grundziige des sovětrussischen Staatsrecht (1925), p. 114 ff.

44 Verdross, Zeitschrift für öffentliches Becht, IX (1930), pp. 577-582.

45 For the text of the Constitution of the U. S. S. R. of Jan. 31, 1924, see Delpech and Laferriére, Les constitutions modernes, II (1929), p. 388.

46 Rajevič, Vlastj Sovětov, No. 10 (1923), p. 27, quoted by Timaschew, op. cit., p. 32.

47 Chernov, “The Soviet Government and the Communist Party,” Foreign Affairs (N. Y.), VII (1929-30), p. 244.

48 Ibid., p. 242.

49 Before the All-Russian Congress of Political Instructors, quoted from Pravda, Nov. 5, 1920, by Mannzen, Sowjetunion und Völkerrecht (1932), p. 52. “The Central Committee directs the activity of the Soviets and other public organizations through the intermediary of the corresponding Communist fraction.” Sec. 24, par. 2, Statutes of the Communist Party (August, 1922), quoted by Timaschew, op. cit., p. 120. “Directive principles are given by the Central Committee; the Council of People's Commissars carry them out.” Nogin, before the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party, quoted, ibid., p. 121.

50 See Timaschew, op. cit., pp. 2, 114 ff. For an analysis of personal unions in the Soviet Union, see the list given by Chernov in Foreign Affairs, VII (1929-30), pp. 256-258.

51 See the treaty provisions and agreements cited below, p. 660 ff., and especially the exchange of notes between M. Litvinov and President Roosevelt, Nov. 16,1933, p. 661, below. There appears to be no evidence in support of the common assertion that the Third International is subsidized by the Soviet Government. See Mannzen, op. cit., pp. 47-48, and The United States and the Soviet Union (Committee on Russian-American Relations, The American Foundation, Nov. 1,1933), p. 138.

52 Art. 1, Statutes of the Communist International, adopted at its Sixth Congress, 1928. Wheeler-Bennett, Documents on International Affairs, 1929, p. 57.

53 Molotov, quoted by Florinsky, op. cit., p. 232.

54 See Verdross, op. cit., p. 580.

55 Quoted by Schuman, American Policy toward Russia since 1917 (1928), p. 293.

56 See p. 662 ft”, below.

57 “Whatever may be the legal validity of this argument, the undeniable fact remains that the Russian Communist Party controls the Soviet Government and completely dominates the Third International.” Florinsky, op. cit, p. 231.

58 Nov. 28, 1924. The Times, Nov. 29, 1924. At the Genoa Economic Conference of 1922, the Soviet Delegation refused to enter into any general agreement to abstain from propaganda on the ground that it would be impossible to forbid the activities of political parties and workers’ organizations unless they should be contrary to the law of the land. Documents diplomatiques: Conférence Economique Internationale de Gênes (Paris, 1922), pp. 99, 105, 118, 129.

59 Note of Sept. 27, 1921, to the British Government. Cmd. 2895 (1927), p. 13.

60 Quoted by Chernov, Foreign Affairs (N. Y.), VII (1929-30), p. 247.

61 Quoted by Mr. W. Thome in Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 197, col. 717.

62 Art. 7 (5), 11 League of Nations Treaty Series (cited hereafter as LNTS), No. 289, p. 50.

63 July 12, 1920, Art. 4 (1), 3 LNTS, No. 94, p. 122.

64 Aug. 11, 1920, Art. 4 (2), Freund, Russlands Friedens- und Handelsverträge 1918-1923 (1924), p. 96. Footnotes 65-67 on facing page.

65 March 16, 1921, Art. 8, De Martens, Nouveau recueil général, XVI (3e sér.), p. 37.

66 Feb. 26, 1921, Art. 5, 9 LNTS, No. 268, p. 400.

67 June 1,1922, Arts. 5, 6,16, ibid., No. 415, p. 337. The treaties of Nov. 5, 1921, with Mongolia, and of June 24, 1931, with Afghanistan, require the parties to forbid the residence of individuals, as well as of organizations, having as their aim the overthrow of the government of the other contracting party. Art. 3 (1), Freund, op. cit., p. 129; and Art. 3, De Martens, op. oit., XXVIII, p. 326, respectively.

68 Art. 5, par. 2, 6 LNTS, No. 149, p. 123. Art. 6 of the treaty with China, May 31,1924 (37 LNTS, No. 955, p. 177), and Art. 5 of the non-aggression pact with France, Nov. 29, 1932 (Bulletin de Vlnstitut Intermidiaire International, XXVIII (1923), p. 42), are similar. On the occasion of the recognition of Soviet Russia by Czechoslovakia and Rumania on June 9, 1934, a similar agreement was made. It is reported from Riga that on the same day there was held at Moscow a conference of leading officials of the Communist International, at which the prospects of revolution in Czechoslovakia were described as having improved as a result of the application by the local Communist Party of instructions laid down by “Comrade Stalin, leader of the international proletariat.” The Times, June 11, 1934.

69 Art. 5, 34 LNTS, No. 866, p. 32.

70 This Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), Supplement, p. 3. Paragraphs 3 and 4 pledge the Soviet Government not to permit the establishment upon its territory of any organizations claiming to be the Government of the United States, which makes any attempt upon its territorial integrity, or has as its aim the overthrow of the government, or the political and social order of the United States. In reply to M. Litvinov's note, President Roosevelt agreed that “It will be the fixed policy of the Executive of the United States within the limits of the powers conferred by the Constitution and the laws of the United States to adhere reciprocally to the engagements above expressed.” Ibid., p. 4. It will be noted that the obligations are not reciprocal, since no change in the American law, which is now inadequate to enforce such pledges as are made in the Russian note, is contemplated.

71 In treaties with several states, a propaganda clause applicable only to the official representatives or trade delegates of the parties was inserted. See the treaties with Germany, May 6,1921, Art. 15,6 LNTS, No. 159, p. 277; Austria, Dec. 7,1921, Art. 14, Freund, op. cit, p. 138; Norway, Sept. 2, 1921, Art. 8, ibid., p. 132; and Denmark, April 23, 1923, Art. 5, 18 LNTS, No. 450, p. 16.

72 Cmd. 2895 (1927), p. 3. The agreements with Italy, Dec. 26, 1921, preamble (Freund, op. cit., p. 87), Czechoslovakia, June 5, 1922, Art. 8 (De Martens, op. cit., XVIII, p. 643), and Persia, Nov. 1, 1927, Art. 4 (Mannzen, op. cit., p. 45), are similar.

73 Cmd. 2895 (1927), p. 9.

74 Ibid., p. 10. See also the note of the British Government extending dejure recognition to Soviet Russia, Feb. 1, 1924 (The Times, Feb. 2, 1924), and the Russian reply, Feb. 8, 1924 (ibid., Feb. 9, 1924).

75 Cmd. 3467 (1930), Treaty Series, No. 2 (1930).

76 See Bouvé, “The National Boycott as an International Delinquency,” this Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 37.

77 See Eagleton, Responsibility of States in International Law (1928), p. 40; Spiropolous, Die de facto-Regierung im Volkerrecht (1926), p. 172 ff.; and the Opinion and Award in the Arbitration between Great Britain and Costa Rica, Oct. 18, 1923, this Journal, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 147.

78 For a series of articles on National Socialist activities in various European countries, see L'Europe nouveUe, No. 847, May 5, 1934, pp. 452-480.

79 Das Brauribuch, Hakenkreuz gegen Österreich ﹛Herausgeben vom Bundeskanzleramte, Büro des Bundesministers für Sicherheitswesen, Wien, 1933), p. 5. After the dissolution of the National Socialist Party in Austria, it was replaced by the Gesellschaft fur kuUurelle Zusammenarbeit in Ost- und SUdeuropa and the Zentraleuropaische Pressebureau, both in immediate contact with the Aussenpolitische Amt der Reichsleitung der NSDAP at Berlin.

80 Ibid., p. 25. Dr. Proksch, Landesleiter der NSDAP Oesterreichs, has stated that the National Socialist Party of Austria is an independent organization, although “it is in spiritual union with the N. S. D. A. P. of Germany and, therefore, obviously recognizes the spiritual leadership of this movement which has in the meanwhile come into power.” Volkischer Beobachter, June 17, 1933. On June 16,1933, Rudolf Hess issued the following party proclamation: “The Reichsleitung in principle declines to intervene in the internal political affairs of a territory outside the frontiers of the Reich. It accordingly refuses also to give to party formations beyond the frontiers any directions or advice whatsoever, even though these party formations correspond to, or are related to, the N. S. D. A. P.” Frankfurter Zeitung, June 18,1933. Compare Das Braunbuch, p. 13 ff.

81 Habicht was expelled for “criminal agitation against the state,” although he claimed diplomatic immunity by virtue of an appointment as German press attaché at Vienna which the Austrian Government had refused to recognize. Neue Freie Presse, June 1,14, 17, and July 6, 1933. For the German case, see the Völkischer Beobachter, June 14-16, 1933. For an example of Herr Habicht's style, see his broadcast of July 5, 1933, in which he Defines as a “traitor” one who, “like the Dolfuss Government, violates the constitution, abuses the laws and, as representative of a minority, coerces an overwhelming majority.” Neue Freie Presse, July 6,1933. Writing in the official Volkischer Beobachter (Jan. 4, 1934), Habicht promises that “Those who have suffered in the cause of the Greater Reich shall be remembered in the hour of victory… . Nothing shall be forgotten, be it good or evil, loyalty or betrayal, and at his time everyone shall receive his just deserts.” Should he return to Austria, Habicht could undoubtedly be prosecuted for treason under the provision of the Austrian penal code (Strafgesetz (1852), § 38) on extraterritorial crime committed by aliens. He could also be prosecuted on the ground that his utterances accomplish their illegal effect upon Austrian territory. Compare the decision of the German Reichsgericht, Dec. 23, 1889 (20 Entscheidungen in Strafsachen, p. 146), in which it was held that sedition had been committed in Germany by a person who, upon French territory and within hearing distance of the German frontier, had shouted, “Vive la France*.” See Strenuit, La radiophonie et le droit international public (1932), p. 37 ff.; and A. Raestad, “Les responsabilitis legates des organismes de radiodiffusion,” La radiodiffusion et la paix: Dossiers de la cooperation internationale (1933), pp. 155-163.

82 Speech to the Reichstag, Jan. 30, 1934. Völkischer Beobachter, Jan. 31, 1934.

83 Note from the German Foreign Office to the Austrian Government, ibid., Feb. 3, 1934.

84 On Feb. 20,1934, Herr Habicht, in a broadcast plainly directed to the Austrian people, ordered all members of the party to refrain for a period of eight days from all attacks upon the Austrian Government “in word, writing or by other means.” Neue Freie Presse, Feb. 21, 1934. Dr. Frank, Bavarian Minister of Justice, on March 18, 1933, made a radio address at Munich in which he greeted the National Socialists of Austria and warned the Austrian Government “with all friendliness and brotherly love not to compel the National Socialists of Germany to secure the freedom of their German compatriots in Austria.” The Observer, March 26, 1933; Neue Freie Presse, May 16, 1933.

85 55th Periodical Report of the Governing Commission, Sept. 30, 1933. League of Nations Official Journal, January, 1934, p. 35. Threats calculated to influence voting in the approaching plebiscite have been made by persons holding high positions in the German Government and the National Socialist Party. General Goering is reported to have stated in a speech made at Trier on Nov. 5,1933, that when the Saar was returned to Germany he would see to it “that the red rats do not creep into the holes of the black mice.” League of Nations Official Journal, March, 1934, p. 328. Herr Simon, a district leader of the National Socialist Party and member of the Prussian Council of State, stated at the Niederwald demonstration on Aug. 28, 1933: “The Saar Territory will return to the Reich! Give to the people of the Saar authority in its own house for twenty-four hours and it will show how one grasps the iron broom and ejects vermin. Against the disloyalty of fugitive traitors we oppose the loyalty of the home population, and against their hate, fanatical love of the nation.” Völkischer Beobachter, Aug. 29, 1933.

86 Letter from the Chairman of the Governing Commission to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, Jan. 5,1934. League of Nations Official Journal, March, 1934, p. 303.

87 Letter from the Chairman of the Governing Commission to the German Foreign Minister, March 28, 1934. League of Nations Document C.201.1934,VII.

88 Oesetz gegen die Neubildung von Parteien, Reichsgesetzblatt, I, p. 479

89 Gesetz zur Sicherun§ der Einheit von Partei und Stoat, ibid., p. 1016. Section 2 of this law provides that “As a guarantee of the close cooperation of agencies of the party and the S. A. with the public authorities, the Deputy of the Leader and the Chief of Staff of the S. A. become members of the Government of the Reich. By a law of July 3, 1934 (ibid., I, p. 529), this section is amended to provide that only the Deputy of the Leader shall be a member of the national government.

90 Pfundtner and Neubert, Das neue Deutsche Reichsrecht, commentary to the law cited above, note 89. This legislation, the commentators assert, is merely the legal recognition of “an already historically accomplished fact… . The unity of party and state was born at the moment when the President of the Reich entrusted the Chancellorship and, thereby, the leadership of the state, to the Leader of the N. S. D. A. P.“

91 Communication from the Chinese Government. League of Nations Document A (Extr.).A.155.1932.VII, p. 15.

92 See the Memorandum on Boycotts and Japanese Interests in China, Supplementary Documents to the Report of the Commission of Enquiry, p. 228 ff. League of Nations Document C.663.M.320.1932.VII, Annexes.

93 Observations of the Japanese Government on the Report of the Commission of Enquiry. League of Nations Document C.775.M.366.1932.VII, p. 12.

94 See the “Memorandum sur le boycottage.” Le conflit Sino-Japonais: Memoranda du Gouvemement Chinois presentes a la Commission d'Etude de la Societe des Nations (Nankin et Peiping, 1932), Document No. 14, p. 140. Also, League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 112, p. 72.

95 Memorandum on Boycotts and Japanese Interests in China (cited, note 92, above), p. 120.

96 Bouve, op. cit., p. 37.

97 Dr. Lauterpacht has objected that to make a government responsible for acts of a party would “play havoc with the established rules of state responsibility.” (“Boycott in International Relations,” British Year Book of International Law, XIV (1933), p. 134.) A state may at times, he asserts, be able “to do through individuals and private bodies what it is not allowed to do itself… . In any case this is the present position of international law.” It would seem that the learned author here involves himself in a patent contradiction with his statement that the “Rules of international law on the matter of state responsibility are based upon the separation of the state from the individuals and associations of which it is composed.” This separation is surely broken down whenever the government acts through such persons or associations.