founded their right for intervention on the provisions of the treaty of 1863 by which they had guaranteed a constitutional monarchy in Greece-he advances the sophistical argument that a casus guarantiæ could only come into play in case the constitution was abolished, but not in case it was in any way modified, because, he argues, Greece is a constitutional monarchy as long as she has a king at her head and has a constitution. This is pure casuistry. According to this reasoning, the King of Greece may violate the constitution, but as long as he limits his action to modifications of it and not to an abrogation, Greece continues to be a constitutional state, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution which specifies in what manner modifications may be made to it. But supposing, says this apologist of Constantine, that the treaty of 1863 gave the right of intervention against any kind of violation of the constitution, still this right cannot be invoked by the guaranteeing powers without a previous request from Greece. "Who," he adds, "would have the right to request the assistance of the guarantors? If one does not wish to come into conflict with the most fundamental principles, it would be no other but the person who, from the point of view of international law, represents the Hellenic State, that is to say the king in conformity with Article 32 of the revised Greek Constitution of 1911." Dr. Strupp evidently overlooks the fact that Greece is not Prussia but "a royal democracy," and that, according to Article 21 of her constitution, "all powers emanate from the nation" and that, therefore, the King of Greece cannot say "l'Etat c'est moi." The article of the constitution which he invokes (Article 32), that the king is the supreme chief of the state, exists in all the constitutions of those constitutional states whose chief of state is a king, but this does not mean that such sovereigns are absolute monarchs. On the contrary, the government of such states lies in the hands of the representatives of the nation, or the parliament, and this is also the case with Greece. The writer, emphasizing his point still further, argues that the charge that Constantine violated the constitution by twice dissolving the national legislature has no foundation because the ex-king in thus acting adhered to a definite provision of the constitution (Article 37), and his right to do this was absolute. In other words, that he had the right to dissolve the Greek Parliament as many times as he wished. Dr. Strupp fails to see that under such a system constitutional royalty would be a mere mockery, and that a king by resorting to measures like this can assume dictatorial powers under the guise of the exercise of constitutional authority. Referring to the status of the reigning King of Greece, Alexander, he says that the latter is only a private person with a royal title because neither the king nor the heir to the throne have abdicated and that therefore Prince Alexander is not a king.” The champion of Constantine evidently forgets the fact that the Allies in their note to the ex-king at the time of his expulsion requested him to abdicate and that he agreed to leave the country. Therefore, as Mr. Venizelos has quite recently said in refuting this point of view, such argumentation is pure chicanery. On the whole, Dr. Strupp seems to have assumed the task of justifying the arbitrary acts of Constantine, who during his short reign not only evinced a most autocratic spirit, arrogating to himself the so-called "divine right of authority" in Greece, but also has done everything in his power to help the cause of Germany and that of his brother-in-law William, as is evidenced by the secret correspondence exchanged between the two royal courts, and other official documents, which have since that time been made public. THEODORE P. ION. PERIODICAL LITERATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [See Table of References, p. 421] Adriatic Question. Allies' settlement of Jan. 14, 1920, and Jugo-Slav reply of Jan. 21, 1920. Contemporary R., Mar., 1920, 117: 430. Fiume and the Adriatic. Contemporary R., Feb., 1920. 117: 260. How compromise between Italy and Jugoslavia was reached by Premiers and rejected by President Wilson. Cur. Hist., Mar., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 389. Peace Conference and the. Edinburgh R., Apr., 1920, 231: 209. Some Adriatic problems. H. C. Woods. Contemporary R., May, 1920, 117: 635. Albania. The Albanian question. Yovan Tomitch. Balkan R., Feb. and Mar., 1920, 3: 66,104. The future of. Brig. Gen. G. P. Scriven. N. Am. Rev., Mar., 1920, 211: 332. Aliens. A government's liability for brigandage against. E. M. B. Yale L. J., Jan., 1920, 29: 333. Arabs. The Arab question. R. Machray. Fortnightly R., Feb., 1920, 107: 249. Armenia. Armenia's struggle for independence. W. D. P. Bliss. Cur. Hist., General Harbord's report on. Cur. Hist., May, 1920, 12: 330. Germany, Turkey, and the Armenian massacres. J. E. Barker. Quarterly R., Apr., 1920, 233: 285. Some facts about Armenia. B. B. Moore. Cur. Hist., June, 1920, 12: 504. The Armenians: their past and future. W. E. D. Allen. Quarterly R., Jan., 1920, 233: 237. Australia. The Pacific triangle. S. Greenbie. N. Am. R., Mar., 1920, 211: 340. Austria-Hungary. Light on Austria's war guilt. Analysis of new Red Book. L. E. Matthaei. Cur. Hist., June, 1920, 12: 534. Peace offer in 1917. Details of the Prince Sixtus episode. Cur. Hist., Mar., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 519. Treaty of peace with. G. H. Derry. Am. Pol. Sc. R., Feb., 1920, 14: 126. War aims in the winter of 1915-1916 as revealed by secret documents. R. J. Kerner. J. Int. Rel., Apr., 1920, 10: 444. Balkans of Central Europe. P. M. Brown. N. Am. R., Feb., 1920, 211: 182. Balkan Question. Dangerous rivalry between Greece and Bulgaria over Turkish territory. Cur. Hist., Mar., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 431. Balkan Question. Italy in the. H. F. Armstrong. N. Am. R., Apr., 1920, 211: 472. The Balkan situation. A. H. Lybyer. J. Int. Rel., Apr., 1920, 10: 404. Væ victis. J. D. Bourchier. Contemporary R., Jan., 1920, 117: 25. Belgium. Belgium's international position. Speech of M. Hymans, Foreign Minister, Dec. 23, 1919. Contemporary R., Feb., 1920, 117: 280. Berchtold, Count. War guilt of. Cur. Hist., Apr., 1920, 12: 157. Bernstorff, Count. On the witness stand. German ex-Ambassador's testimony on why President Wilson's peace efforts failed. Cur. Hist., March, 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 513. Bolshevism. How we made the October revolution. Leon Trotzky. Cur. Hist., Jan., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 100. Industry and finance. Dr. E. Respondek. Contemporary R., Feb., 1920, 117: 269. In Asia. P. S. Reinsch. Asia, Apr., 1920, 20: 310. The Bolshevist world offensive. Cur. Hist., Feb., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 302. The Soviet system and ours. B. L. French. Cur. Hist., Feb., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 313. What Bolshevism would mean in America. Senate Committee's report. Cur. Hist., Feb., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 324. 392. The psychology of. S. Rapoport. Contemporary R., Mar., 1920, 117: Bulgaria. Bulgaria's new frontiers. Cur. Hist., May, 1920, 12: 339. Mar., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 491; China. China and the Powers. 233: 1. Armenia, Azerbaidjan and Georgia. Cur. Hist., Henry Cockburn. Quarterly R., Jan., 1920, Claims. Claims of American citizens against foreign governments. C. H. Huberich. Int. Law Notes, Dec., 1919, 4: 61. Cuban International Law Society. La Sociedad Cubana de Derecho Internacional. J. C. Zamora. Cuba Contemporánea, June, 1920, 23: 164. Danzig. Past and present. M. F. Liddell. Contemporary R., Mar., 1920, 117: 380. Egypt. The British protectorate of. Sir M. McIlwraith. Fortnightly R., Mar., 1920, 107: 375. The problem of. C. Goodman. Contemporary R., Mar., 1920, 117: 356. Esthonia. The peace between Soviet Russia and. E. Laaman. Contemporary R., May, 1920, 117: 696. Extraterritoriality. Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in British Canada. W. R. Riddell. Can. L. T., June, 1920, 40: 491. Finland. Free Finland. A. H. Saastamoinen. Cur. Hist., Jan., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 104. Fiume. D'Annunzio's adventure drawing to an end. Cur. Hist., Jan., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 11. Foreign Judgments. Enforcement of. Harvard L. R., May, 1920, 33: 960. The enforcement of American judgments abroad. E. G. Lorenzen. Yale L. J., Jan., 1920, 29: 268. Georgia. For the Georgian Republic. H. W. Nevinson. Contemporary R., Feb., 1920, 117: 177. The republic of. Dr. W. D. P. Bliss. Cur. Hist., Feb., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 281. German and Austrian peace treaties. The commercial clauses of the. H. F. Moulton. J. Comp. Leg. & Int. Law, Jan., 1920, 2: 64. German war criminals. The demand for. E. R. Bevan. Contemporary R., Mar., 1920, 117: 17. Text of German law of Dec. 13, 1919. Contemporary R., 117: 429. Germany. Germany's economical collapse: A letter from Berlin. R. C. Long. Fortnightly R., Mar., 1920, 107: 346. 224. Labor revolt in. Events in Ruhr region. Cur. Hist., May, 1920, 12: French seizure of German cities. Cur. Hist., May, 1920, 12: 231. Hungary's appeal to England. C. H. Wright. Contemporary R., June, 1920. 117: 809. New government in. Cur. Hist., May, 1920, 12: 250. The Hungarian white terror and the Allies. Contemporary R., May, 1920, 117: 709. The white terror in. Cur. Hist., Jan., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 109. Peace terms imposed by the Allies cause consternation and protest. Cur. Hist., Mar., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 447. International court. An international court for pecuniary claims. E. M. Borchard. Int. Law Notes, Dec., 1919, 4: 7. Die zusammensetzung des internationalen gerichtshofs. H. Wehberg. League of Nations, Feb., 1920, 2: 24. International credit. The Covenant, Apr., 1920, 1: 336. International labor conference. Cur. Hist., Jan., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 31. International legislation. F. N. Keen. J. Comp. Leg. & Int. Law, Jan., 1920, 2: 86. International law. The corporate entity and. E. M. B. Yale L. J., May, 1920, 29: 772. The future of. R. F. Roxburgh. Edinburgh R., Apr., 1920, 231: 232. International private law of Japan. J. E. de Becker. Int. Law Notes, Dec., 1919, 4: 46. International rivers of Europe. Prof. L. W. Lyde. Covenant, Jan., 1920, 1: 168. Internationalism. National foundations of. Lord Eustace Percy. Covenant, Jan., 1920, 1: 152. Ireland and England. Official statement by Premier Lloyd George. Cur. Hist., Feb., 1920, 11 (Pt. 2): 205. T. Historic utterances in Parliament by four clashing leaders in Home Rule debate. Cur. Hist., May, 1920, 12: 192. |