The discussions on the subject of the codification of international law at the 1926 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law made clear once more that matters as to which codification was conceivable fell into two broad classes, namely:Those affecting the international relations of states in their sovereign capacity and those affecting individuals in their international relations. It will be difficult to make law control in the first class of relations; it will be less difficult to do so in the second class.

The year 1925 has been the busiest year in the history of the Permanent Court of International Justice to date. During some part of every month of the year, with the exception of September and December, the court has been in session. Its sixth (extraordinary) session began on January 12 and ended on March 26; its seventh (extraordinary) session began on April 14 and ended on May 16; its eighth (ordinary) session began on June 15 and ended on August 25; and its ninth (extraordinary) session began on October 22 and ended on November 21. During 210 days of the year, the judges were at work at The Hague, and without counting the days required for travelling for which indemnities are paid, they exceeded by ten the 200 days during which indemnities are paid to them to supplement their salaries. The result of the work of these four sessions was three judgments and three advisory opinions, each of which has contributed to the settlement of some difficult problem. In four years, the court has handed down six judgments and twelve advisory opinions. Taken together these judgments and opinions constitute a significant addition to our international jurisprudence, and if they cannot be said to have dealt with problems which might have led to war, they have nevertheless served useful ends in contributing to the removal of possible sources of friction.

Naval fleets are maintained by development and replacement because their possessors dare not fail to make provision for a maritime war in which they may be participants. No means yet devised and accepted for the amicable adjustment of international differences have removed from responsible statesmen a sense of the necessity of anticipating such a contingency. Despite increasing efforts in every quarter to cultivate wills for peace and abhorrence of armed conflict, as well as a desire to adjust grave differences by judicial process or through commissions of conciliation, war is still regarded as a contingency which must be reckoned with, and as one which is as dangerous as it is seemingly remote. In making provision as against a contingency which none would welcome or hasten, the governments of maritime states do not necessarily encourage war or indicate approval of recourse to it. A particular conference of maritime states may in fact uplift the hopes of prospective belligerents which resent and oppose agreements restricting recourse to measures and instrumentalities on which they expect to rely. On the other hand, general arrangements respecting belligerent activities may serve to lessen a zeal for war and to remove its very approach further from the horizon. Everything depends upon the ambitions of the states which consent to confer. The point to be observed is that agreements for the regulation of maritime war in so far as they purport to proscribe or check the use of particular instrumentalities or recourse to particular measures, are not to be deemed bellicose in design or effect. Such regulatory agreements are advocates of peace rather than of war. Moreover, as will be seen, they may be the means of encouraging states to reduce armaments which would otherwise be maintained.

It was inevitable that the end of the World War should be followed by a revival of interest in the systematic development of the law of nations. Such a result was foreseen by W. E. Hall as long ago as 1890, but the extent of the revival and its consequences were pictured by him in terms altogether too sanguine. Many of the people who have expected the experience of the war to be capitalized in an immediate clarification of the laws of war must have been greatly disappointed by the events of the past years. A struggle which aroused so many passions, which divided a large part of the human race into hostile camps, could not possibly have produced the conditions necessary for building a new law which would embody the common views of people in many countries; but perhaps it did serve to direct attention to the lawless character of international relations in certain fields, and thus gave to politicians and lawyers opportunity for extending and improving the law governing such relations. If there has not been a general unanimity of opinion as to the method to be followed and the direction to be taken, the opportunity has not been neglected, and currents are now under way and agencies have been created which promise a continued if not a consistent progress for the future.

In an earlier issue of this Journal the writer called attention to some of the questions raised by the recent liquor treaties and among them to the question whether legislation is required to make Article II of the treaties effective.

“ I have often taken occasion to remark that next to the Church, the Mixed Courts are the most successful international institution in history.” (Farewell address of Sir Maurice Amos, Judicial Adviser to the Egyptian Government, Alexandria, March 25,1925, trans.)

The participation of the United States in the Opium Conference, and in the London and Paris conferences with reference to the operation of the Dawes plan, has brought forward the question of the right of the executive to participate in such conferences. Sharp criticism has been levelled at the executive on the ground that the President is without right to send representatives, either official or unofficial, to such gatherings without the prior authorization of Congress. This question has now been in the foreground of discussion intermittently for twelve years and is worthy of some analysis.

Many times inquiry has been made as to the legal status of the Pan American Union. Its friends have often wished that an opportunity might be afforded a court to determine that question. For the first time in its history, a court of the United States recently had occasion to pass on the matter.

The Syrian insurrection culminating in the bombardment of Damascus in October, 1925, is an incident of a kind which has frequently marred the relations of western Powers with less advanced peoples. Thus it may be of more than passing interest to examine the conduct of the parties concerned from the standpoint of international law.