¹ Statement in House of Commons by Sir John Simon, Foreign Minister, Feb. 18, 1932, quoted in Pacific Affairs, May, 1932, p. 416.

² This Journal, Special Supplement, April, 1929, p. 196.

³ Wright, this Journal, April, 1932, Vol. 26, p. 367.

⁴ Final report, Spanish Treaty Claims Commission, May 2, 1910, 61st Cong., 2nd Sess., Sen. Doc. 550, p. 4, and epitome of same in Special Report of William E. Fuller, 1907, p. 22.

⁵ Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, N. Y., 1919, pp. 247, 251–252, citing many cases; Hall, International Law, 8th ed., p. 901 ff.; U. S. Rules of Land Warfare, 1914, sees. 12, 220,426; IV Hague Convention, 1907, Art. 4.

⁶ Miller, The Geneva Protocol, N. Y., 1925, pp. 80, 151, 205. See also Wright, The Outlawry of War, this Journal, January, 1925, Vol. 19, p. 83.

⁷ The precedents are summarized in Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Code on Responsibility of States, commentary on Arts. 6, 7, 10 (this Journal, Special Supplement, April, 1929, pp. 133–134, 149–167, 187–194). The contemporary opinion of states is indicated in League of Nations, Conference for the Codification of International Law, Bases of Discussion (V, Legal Questions, 1929), Vol. 3, Responsibilities of States, Arts. 7, 10, 27, pp. 52–55, 62–67, 136–139.

⁸ Willoughby, Foreign Rights and Interests in China, Baltimore, 1927, Vol. 1, pp. 480 ff.

⁹ Op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 498 ff.; Report of the Hon. Richard Feetham, C.M.G., to the Shanghai Municipal Council, Shanghai, 1931, Vol. 1, pp. 238 ff., Vol. 2, pp. 104 ff., 146 ff.

¹⁰ Spanish Treaty Claims Commission, Final Report, see note 4 supra; Special Report of William E. Fuller, 1907, p. 25.

¹¹ France was held liable for Napoleon’s confiscations of American vessels in Dutch ports in 1809–10; Peru was held not liable for injury to the American schooner Rampart at Callao because such injuries were committed by the Spanish authorities; the United States admitted responsibility, by implication, for losses to aliens resulting from its occupation of Vera Cruz in 1914; Germany was held liable for injuries to American citizens committed by German forces in Belgium, 1914–17; Great Britain and the United States were held liable for German losses :resulting from their military activities in Samoa in 1899; see this Journal, Special Supplement, April, 1929, p. 197; Moore, International Arbitrations, pp. 4473, 4603; Malloy, Treaties, etc., Vol. 2, p. 1595.

¹² Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, p. 416 ff.; Vol. 6, p. 926 ff. The United States cited in support of its position the liability of Tuscany for injury to a British national by Austrian armed forces in Florence in 1852; the liability of Belgium for destruction of the property of French, British, Prussian and American nationals in Antwerp by the Netherland Government in 1830; the liability of Two Sicilies for confiscation of American ships at Naples by Murat in 1807; the non-liability of Great Britain for losses of foreigners resulting from her bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807, and from her bombardment of Canton in 1857. The case of Murat is discussed by Borchard (this Journal, Special Supplement, April, 1929, p. 196) as a case where “a mere substitution of government had occurred in the same state” and “the doctrine of state continuity would serve to hold the state responsible for acts of its several governments.” In the Copenhagen and Canton cases no opportunity seems to have been offered for impartial determination of the liability of Great Britain or of the territorial authorities.

¹³ Wright, this Journal, October, 1924, Vol. 19, p. 766; January, 1925, Vol. 19, pp. 89 ff., and supra notes 11 and 12.

¹⁴ Wright, this Journal, April, 1932, Vol. 26, pp. 367–8.