peared on the eve of the Second Hague Conference, has written a careful and minute examination of its proceedings and its results. The first part, devoted to procedure, appeared in 1908; the second part, devoted to the action of the Conference on the question of war, with reference to the Declaration of London, appeared in 1911. It was to be expected from a publicist of Professor Nippold's standing that his work would be accurate, and the reader who consults it will not be disappointed. And it would likewise be expected that Professor Nippold should, in the course of the work, reiterate the views so forcibly expressed in Die Fortbildung des Verfahrens in völkerrechtlichen Streitigkeiten, written in view of the approaching Second Conference, and in this case too the reader would not be disappointed.

It is not the reviewer's intention to consider in detail Professor Nippold's statements based upon the proceedings of the Conference. Suffice it to say on this point that a very careful reading of the volume shows that the work has been conscientiously done and that the reader may rely with confidence upon Professor Nippold's statements of fact. The point of view from which the book is written is that of a professed believer in arbitration, although the parts relating to war are carefully and adequately discussed. While thus commending the book without reservation, as to facts, the present reviewer is not so sure of the conclusions which Professor Nippold draws from them, and he would like to call attention to Professor Nippold's treatment of the proposed Court of Arbitral Justice as unsympathetic, if indeed it be not based upon a misapprehension of it and of the service which it could render. The learned author evidently looks upon international arbitration as an ultimate development, instead of seeing in it a transition from self-redress to judicial settlement. It is true, as laid down by the First Conference, that the object of arbitration is the settlement of international disputes by arbiters or judges of the parties' own choice and on the basis of respect for law. It does not necessarily follow, even if this be admitted, that the choice of judges to be called upon to decide a controversy shall be made by the parties on the eve of submitting the controversy, or with respect to any particular controversy. Nor does it follow that the nations might not constitute an arbitral board, agree upon its composition, and invest it, thus constituted, with jurisdiction over any or all controversies of an arbitrable nature which might arise among them. Freedom of choice does not necessarily consist in choice at any one time, and it is difficult to see how the selection of arbiters might not be made

with equal propriety before, as after, the controversy has arisen. This is, however, a minor matter.

Professor Nippold believes that the creation of the proposed Court of Arbitral Justice would, if the expression be permissible, denature arbitration. This result does not necessarily follow, because the proposed court is not to displace the so-called Permanent Court of Arbitration, but to exist alongside of it, leaving the nations free to form a special or temporary tribunal with arbiters of their own choice, should they so desire, or to refer the controversy to a permanent tribunal whose composition is known in advance. Which is the better institution may well be a matter of doubt, and some publicists prefer the present system of arbitration, others the judicial settlement of legal questions by a Permanent International Court of Justice composed of judges by profession. Professor Nippold prefers the former, the reviewer the latter, method. The reviewer, however, cheerfully admits the services which arbitration has rendered in the past and believes that temporary tribunals will be created in the future and render like services. He believes, however, that there is a difference between the settlement of international disputes "on the basis of respect for law," to use the language of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and the decision of legal controversies by the passionless and impartial application of principles of law.

Nations which have practiced arbitration for centuries, such as Switzerland, of which Professor Nippold has the honor to be a citizen, have discarded arbitration for judicial settlement, and it is believed that the reasons which led Switzerland will lead nations in the long run to prefer the judicial settlement of legal questions by a Permanent Court of Justice, although they may prefer, and in the writer's opinion they will prefer, to submit questions of a political nature, although involving law, to temporary tribunals, whose judges they can appoint, whose actions they may hope to control, or whose opinions or past conduct leads them to expect a favorable decision. Which method is the better, time alone can tell, and it seems better to approach a question with an open and an unbiased mind, rather than to insist that a different development is unacceptable because it is different. On this point the reviewer would suggest Dr. Wehberg's book entitled Das Problem eines internationalen Staatengerichtshofes as an antidote to Professor Nippold's views. on the subject.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

Japan and Japanese-American Relations. Clark University Addresses. Edited by George H. Blakeslee. New York: G. E. Stechert & Co. 1912. pp. xi, 348.

This volume consists of a series of twenty-two addresses delivered at the Clark University conference upon international problems in 1911. Seven of the lectures were given by Japanese scholars, the others by various Americans, some of them missionaries, qualified by their general reputations to speak on the subject. A number of the lectures have already appeared in the Journal of Race Development and are now assembled in book form for convenience.

As is inevitable in a joint work of this sort, there is little continuity. And despite the plan to have each lecture deal with a distinct topic, there is more or less repetition.

A few of the addresses deal with the legal aspects of Japanese-American relations. One of these, "The Family of Nations Idea and Japan," is a simple account of the steps by which Japan secured the recognition of full sovereignty. Another "The Evolution of Japanese Diplomacy" takes the ground that, as there is at present no open door for Asiatic immigrants in other continents, though all the while the Powers insist upon free entrance of all mankind into Asia, the highest aim of Japanese and Chinese diplomacy must be a revision of the relations of Asia to the rest of the world on this matter. In the same address there is a passage which is best quoted:

*

In the war with Russia "Japanese forces were victorious both on land and sea, but-Japanese diplomacy was again outwitted by its adversary over the chess board at Portsmouth, all this largely because Japan neglected to interest the press of the world in her cause and claims, while the Russian side of the story was ably, tactfully and appealingly presented to more than one hundred journalists of all nationalities. * * Russian diplomacy was particularly successful in so pleading its case to the American government, through its chief executive, and to the American public, through the press, as to arouse the vague but none the less disquieting fear that Japan might one day occupy both the Russian and Chinese coasts of the Asiatic Pacific, and next descend upon the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii and finally upon the Pacific slope of this western continent. This to our view was the true inception of the rumors of a pending conflict between the United States and Japan."

The chapter "A Literary Legend: The Oriental" makes up in warmth for what it lacks in length. Its author, Mr. Griffis, declares that

poet, dramatist, sentimental writer, novelist and maker of sensational machinery for the stage, picture show and quick-selling newspaper have created the "Oriental"

**

of imagination, fancy, prejudice and bigotry, who has no counterpart in reality, or has never existed. * Such a delineation *** has mercantile value. It pays in what the American loves so dearly-money. * * To one who has lived among

*

the Japanese and knows something of their history, literature and art it is impossible to agree with the impressionist Hearn, of the vile traducer whose motive directly or indirectly is fame or cash. * * After nearly the whole of an adult life spent directly or indirectly with "the Orientals," as in large part were the lives of my father and grandfather before me, and with an honest perseverance and fairly steady industry in research, I see absolutely no difference in the human nature of an Asiatic, a European or an American.

These are strong words, and coming from one so well qualified to know, they cannot be ignored. Science has not as yet declared that there is a fundamental difference between occidental and oriental. Why then should the irresponsible writer be permitted to assume it-to our cost?

As was to be expected, these lectures show decided pacific leanings. They put pronounced emphasis upon the factors tending to draw the United States and Japan together, and the effect of the whole is to leave the feeling that the various contributors are too sanguine. Granted that there is no real difference between orientals and occidentals, the popular belief that there is, however it originated, jeopardizes amicable relations. Granted, too, that common sense would dictate peace between us and Japan because of our trade relations and traditional friendship, it must not be overlooked that wars too often begin just because common sense gives way to foolishness. These addresses attempt to dispel some of the popular misconceptions which cause nations to do foolish things, and for that reason they are welcome.

Jahrbuch des Völkerrechts.

EDWARD B. KREHBIEL.

Edited by Th. Niemeyer and K. Strupp. Munich and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. 1913. pp. viii, 1556.

The first issue of the Jahrbuch des Völkerrechts is a formidable, though not a forbidding, volume, but it is one which no person interested in international law and international relations can afford to overlook. It has a separate and distinct place on the table of the man of affairs, as well as of the expert, because it gives a survey of international development from September, 1911, to August, 1912. It does not compete with journals of international law, nor with accounts of the year's happenings, in so far as they concern international relations, to be found in encyclopedias.

It gives the texts of the most important documents bearing upon international relations, using for this purpose the language of the original document, be it in French, German, Italian, Spanish, or English. This alone would make the work valuable as a book of reference, but its usefulness does not stop here.

It has separate articles and reports on the important events and questions of the year written by persons who can justly be called specialists on the different subjects, reports upon the events which have taken place in the individual countries, and reports on congresses and conferences.

It has a section devoted to the signing and ratification of international agreements, a section devoted to subjects such as the proposed Academy at The Hague, the preparations for the Third Hague Conference, and the Pan-American movement, to mention only a few subjects which may be considered to be timely or to have a general interest. It has a bibliography and it ends with an index.

The question must be unimportant which this volume does not discuss, and no well informed reader can consult it without finding what he seeks, unless the subject is beyond the scope of the volume. In a word, the work is indispensable, and Messrs. Niemeyer and Strupp are to be congratulated upon having conceived the idea and upon their patience and industry in adequately carrying it out.

It has been stated that important documents are printed in various foreign languages with which the reader and student are supposed to be familiar. The same thing applies to the articles and reports. German, French and English are used, although, so far as the reviewer can discover, there is no Spanish article, and the contributions of Italian writers have been translated into German. This, of course, enables readers of different nationalities to use the volume and makes it appeal to a wider public as a book of reference. The editors recognize, of course, that certain subjects of a political nature will naturally betray the sympathy and bias of the writer with an action or policy with which his country is concerned. This cannot be avoided, but the editors have supplied a corrective. Thus, to cite an example or two, the Panama Canal question is treated by an American writer, who defends the action of the United States, but it is followed by an article from an English writer who explains and justifies the English point of view. In the same way, the Morocco question is treated by a French writer and the corrective is supplied by an article from the pen of one of the editors, Dr. Niemeyer.