disadvantages can be avoided. on the part of good judges can fault that codification has made. And interpretation to the worst, there is always a Parliament or another law-giving authority of the land to mend through further legislation the faults of previous codification. Codifica national § 35. But do these arguments in favour of codifi- Merits of cation in general also apply to codification of the to Law of Nations? I have no doubt that they do Inter more or less. If some of these arguments have no Law. force in view of the special circumstances of the existence of International Law and of the peculiarities of the Family of Nations, there are other arguments which take the place of the former. When opponents maintain that codification would never be practicable on account of differences of languages and of technical juridical terms, I answer that such argument is only as much as and no more in the way of codification than it is in the way of contracting international treaties. The fact that such treaties are every day concluded shows that difficulties which arise out of differences of languages and of technical juridical terms are not at all insuperable. Much more than this weighs the next argument of opponents, that codification of the Law of Nations would cut off the latter's organic growth and future development. It cannot be denied that codification always interferes with the growth of customary law, although the assertion is not justified that codification does cut off such growth. But this disadvantage can be met by periodical revisions of the code and by its gradual increase and improvement through enactment of additional and amending rules according to the wants and needs of the days to come. When opponents postulate an international court with power of executing its verdicts as an indispensable condition of codification, I answer that the nonexistence of such a court is quite as much or as little an argument against codification as against the very existence of International Law. If there is a Law of Nations in existence in spite of the non-existence of an international court to guarantee its realisation, I cannot see why the non-existence of such a court should be an obstacle to codifying the very same Law of Nations. It may indeed be maintained that codification is all the more necessary as such an international court does not exist. For codification of the Law of Nations and the solemn recognition of a code by a universal law-making international treaty would give more precision, certainty, and weight to the rules of the Law of Nations than they have now in their unwritten condition. And a uniform interpretation of a code is now, since the Hague Peace Conference has instituted a permanent Court of Arbitration, much more realisable than in former times, although this court has not and will never have the power of executing its verdicts. But is the Law of Nations ripe for codification? I readily admit that there are certain parts of that law which would offer the greatest difficulty in codification, and which would therefore better remain untouched for the present. But there are other parts, and I think that they constitute the greater portion of the Law of Nations, which are certainly ripe for codification. There can be no doubt that, whatever can be said against codification of the totality of the Law of Nations, partial codification is possible and comparatively easy. The work done by the Institute of International Law, of which the “Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International" gives exhaustive evidence, affords a stepping-stone towards such partial codification. fication $36. From the basis of this work of the Institute How Codiof International Law a partial codification of the could be Law of Nations must be considered practicable. realised. Nevertheless, codification could hardly be realised at once. The difficulties, though not insuperable, are so great that it would take the work of perhaps a generation of able jurists to prepare draft codes for those parts of International Law which may be considered ripe for codification. The only feasible way in which such draft codes could be prepared consists in the appointment on the part of the Powers of an international committee composed of a sufficient number of able jurists, whose task would be the preparation of the drafts. Public opinion of the whole civilised world would, I am sure, watch the work of these men with the greatest anxiety, and the Parliaments of the civilised States would gladly vote the comparatively small sum of money necessary for the costs of the work. If a noble-minded monarch of far-reaching influence would take a personal interest in the matter, the different Governments would hardly refuse to send delegates to an international conference for the purpose of discussing the ways and means for the appointment of an international committee for the preparation of draft codes. No Law of CHAPTER II DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE OF THE LAW OF NATIONS I DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF NATIONS BEFORE Lawrence, 20-29-Manning, pp. 8-20-Halleck, I. pp. 1-11— § 37. International Law as a law between Soveantiquity. reign and equal States based on the common consent of these States is a product of modern Christian civilisation, and may be said to be hardly four hundred years old. However, the roots of this law go very far back into history. Such roots are to be found in the rules and usages which were observed by the different nations of antiquity with regard to their external relations. But it is well known that the conception of a Family of Nations did not arise in the mental horizon of the ancient world. Each nation had its own religion and gods, its own language, law, and morality. International interests of sufficient vigour to wind a band around all the civilised States, bring them nearer to each other, and knit them together into a community of nations, did not spring up in antiquity. On the other hand, however, no nation could avoid coming into contact with other nations. War was waged and peace concluded. Treaties were agreed upon. Оссаsionally ambassadors were sent and received. International trade sprang up. Political men whose cause was lost often fled their country and took refuge in another. And, just as in our days, criminals often fled their country for the purpose of escaping punishment. Such more or less frequent and constant contact of different nations with one another could not exist without giving rise to certain fairly congruent rules and usages to be observed with regard to external relations. These rules and usages were considered under the protection of the gods; their violation called for religious expiation. It is of interest to throw a glance upon the respective rules and usages of the Jews, Greeks, and Romans. § 38. Although they were monotheists and the The Jews. standard of their ethics was consequently much higher than that of their heathen neighbours, the Jews did not in fact raise the standard of the international relations of their time except so far as they afforded foreigners living on Jewish territory equality before the law. Proud of their monotheism and despising all other nations on account of their polytheism, they found it totally impossible to recognise other nations as equals. If we compare the different parts of the Bible concerning the relations of the Jews with other nations, we are struck by the fact that the Jews were sworn enemies of some foreign nations, as the Amalekites, for example, with whom they declined to have any relations whatever in peace. When |