At the recent Washington Conference it was agreed to call another meeting to discuss desirable changes in the rules of maritime warfare. At the meeting this spring of The American Society of International Law opinions did not coincide as to what form the future development of international law of war should take. There seemed a disposition on the part of many to attempt to resume the position previous to 1914 and say, “Let us forget the war damage to international law and continue its development on the old lines.”

The efforts made at the Hague Conference of 1907 to establish a Permanent Court of Arbitral Justice in addition to the panel which we call the Permanent Court of Arbitration, bore fruit at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 in Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The task of establishing a new court was too delicate for the Peace Conference to undertake. So the Covenant stopped short with directing the Council of the League of Nations to formulate plans for a Permanent Court of International Justice, and submit them to the members of the League “for adoption.” The Council lost no time after its organization in discharging this responsibility. At its second session, in February, 1920, which was really its first session for the transaction of business, it set up a Committee of Jurists to draft a scheme. This Committee deliberated through the summer of 1920, and its draft project was submitted to the Council at San Sebastian in August.

It would be difficult to find a better illustration of the dependence of politics upon law than in America’s Japanese problem. Our attitude toward the Oriental has been crystallized in legislation. And much of the popular prejudice against the Japanese arises out of a conflict of legal principles over which they as individuals have no control. This article does not propose to discuss the policy which should be followed in regard to Japanese immigration or to the treatment of Japanese residents already here. But it merely attempts to set forth the legal aspects of the problem which must be considered before it can really be solved.

During the progress of the world war there came to thoughtful men everywhere the deepening conviction that fundamental among the causes of modern warfare are the policies that lead to colonial rivalry and the imperialistic exploitation of undeveloped regions and backward peoples.

All belligerent parties looked forward to the peace settlement as an occasion for the satisfaction of territorial ambitions and the settlement of war damage claims in terms of colonial acquisitions. To humanitarians in all nations the peace settlement seemed to offer a precarious but possible occasion for the settlement of colonial claims upon terms of justice and in the interest of the hitherto little regarded native peoples.

In the April number of this Journal for 1921, Prof. Philip Marshall Brown discussed in a most interesting way “The Aaland Islands Question”.

He dealt with the claim of the islanders to determine by a plebiscite whether they should remain incorporated with the Republic of Finland or be transferred to the Kingdom of Sweden, a transfer apparently desired by almost their entire number, and with the advisory report of the Committee of Jurists thereon. This was, however, a mere step in extended transactions. Now they have been carried through, and not only the issue decided, but a precedent established as to the right of the Council of the League of Nations to intervene for the settlement of international disputes. Moreover, the practice and procedure which may be adopted therefor have been indicated. A review of the whole accomplishment and of the new methods employed seems, therefore, appropriate.