Austen Chamberlain, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, declared in the House of Commons, December 15, 1924, that Great Britain would “ regard as an unfriendly act any attempt at interference in the affairs of Egypt by any other Power, and would consider any aggression against the territory of Egypt as an act to be repelled with all the means at their command.” Similar statements have frequently been made by the responsible ministers of the Powers when discussing “ spheres of influence.” It is probably not possible to give a precise meaning to the phrase “ sphere of influence” because, as Hall says, “ perhaps in its indefiniteness consists its international value.” Nevertheless, the phrase has been applied specifically to characterize the control of portions of Asia and Africa, certain islands in the Caribbean, and of regions in Central America. In these regions are to be found in operation arrangements, some secret and some public, stipulated either by treaty, diplomatic declaration, “ gentlemen's agreements,” or effected, ofttimes, by military or economic penetration, varying greatly in degree and intensity, which enable Powers and their citizens to enjoy advantages in these regions without exercising, necessarily, sovereign control.

Of the many post war problems of Europe few have presented such difficulty as the problem of Poland’s boundaries with Lithuania. Article 87 of the Treaty of Versailles reads in part, “The boundaries not laid down in the present treaty will be subsequently determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.”

The Council of the League of Nations has recently appointed a committee to report on the possible codification of international law. There are no rules in international law determining computation of time, and the prevailing uncertainty opens the door for arbitrary interpretation of the interested parties, which can lead and has often led to unnecessary differences.