urging compulsory labor and military system, and until the people are educated, advocates coercion of labor by the armed forces of the state.

The man-power of the nation seems intended by the plan of the government to be used by registration, mobilization and distribution. Trotzky is president of a commission having this in charge. Liberty of workers seems to be wholly sacrificed in Russia. They are subject to drafts by government for any kind of work without regard to their specialties.

The 25th International Congress of the International Miners' Federation has requested the Labor Office of the League of Nations to seek to find the best method of establishing an International Coal Office for the purpose of securing a more equitable distribution of coal throughout the world. The DirectorGeneral of the Labor Office, with some reservations, intimated a readiness to respond and agreed to bring the matter before the Governing Body in October.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOCIETY

The Executive Council of the American Society of International Law met in Washington on November 13, 1920. After much discussion, it decided that the Society should resume its annual meetings, which had been suspended during the war. The reason for the suspension was that the Society has always sought to consider both sides of a question, and all sides when there are more than two. It was felt that during the war, to which the United States was a party, its members could not be expected to discuss the questions arising from day to day of an international character with a detachment which becomes a scientific body. It may be said that in law the war with Germany still continues; that the armistice of November 11, 1918, was only a cessation of hostilities. This is true in theory, but in fact the war declared against Germany by the United States on April 6, 1917, really ended with the armistice, and the two nations are unofficially, although not officially, at peace. Therefore, the reason which caused the Society to discontinue its annual meetings no longer exists, and the Executive Council resolved that the next annual meeting of the Society should be held in the city of Washington, on the evening of Wednesday, April 27, 1921, ending on Saturday evening, the 30th, with the customary dinner which is always the most enjoyable event of the meeting.

The members of the Council appreciated that the subjects selected for discussion at this first session should be chosen with the greatest care, for, in a certain way, the resumption of regular meetings after an intermission of the kind specified is like the first meeting of a new organization. The Council, therefore, determined the program, leaving it to the Committee on the Annual Meeting to work out the details.

Mr. Elihu Root, President of the Society, called attention to the first resolution of the Advisory Committee of Jurists at The Hague, of which he had been a member and which, during the summer, drafted a project for a Permanent Court of International Justice to be located at The Hague. This resolution recommended that the world should begin its orderly process of development by holding a new conference to be called "A Conference for the Advancement of International Law" in continuation of the first two conferences at The Hague, and to meet at stated intervals to continue the work left unfinished. Specifically, this conference should be held as soon as practicable, for the following purposes, as stated in the resolution:

To restate the established rules of international law, especially, and in the first instance, in the fields affected by the events of the recent war.

To formulate and agree upon the amendments and additions, if any, to the rules of international law shown to be necessary or useful by the events of the war and the changes in the conditions of international life and intercourse which have followed the war.

To endeavor to reconcile divergent views and secure general agreement upon the rules which have been in dispute heretofore.

To consider the subjects not now adequately regulated by international law, but as to which the interests of international justice require that rules of law shall be declared and accepted.

The resolution contemplated that certain scientific bodies should be invited to prepare projects for the work of the conference, which should be submitted beforehand to the several governments and then laid before the conference "for its consideration and such action as it may find suitable." It is believed that the views of the American Society of International Law upon the purposes mentioned in the resolution of the Advisory Committee should be stated, and that they might be found helpful to the cause of justice between nations, based upon rules of law.

It is earnestly hoped that the members of the Society may bend their backs to the burden, for such it is, and that the Society shall not prove recreant to its self-imposed mission "to foster the study of international law and promote the establishment of international relations on the basis of law and justice."

A PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

As the JOURNAL goes to press, the good news comes from Geneva that on Monday, the 13th day of December, 1920, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted, with sundry modifications, the project for a permanent court of international justice, drafted by an advisory committee at The Hague in the summer of 1920. It also recommended that the project be referred to the nations for their consideration and eventual ratification, that it should go into effect when twenty-two nations had ratified it, for the nations so ratifying. The hope was expressed that at least this number would accept it at an early date so that the judges might be selected at the meeting of the Council and the Assembly in September, 1921, and the court be constituted and installed in the Peace Palace at The Hague in the course of 1921.

An editorial comment in the last number of the JOURNAL dealt briefly with the project, stating the method of choosing the judges, the jurisdiction of the court and its procedure. The text of the project was printed in the supplement to that number.2

1

The Council, upon whose invitation the jurists had met at The Hague and to which their report was submitted, approved the general scheme, recommending at the same time to the Assembly that certain of its provisions should be modified. The articles more or less affected are 27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37 and 56. Two new articles, 36bis and 57bis, were added. The most important modification is that concerning Articles 33, 34, and 35 of the project, which were intended to make resort to the court obligatory in a limited number of cases, without a special agreement to submit the dispute as is required in arbitration. This is the great distinction between judicial procedure, on the one hand, and arbitration, on the other, and the Council evidently preferred a court of arbitral justice to one 1 October, 1920 (Vol. 14), p. 581. 2 Ibid. Official Documents, p. 371.

of justice in the strict and technical sense of the word. It is believed, however, that the modifications of Articles 33, 34 and 35 affect only the procedure, not the decision, which, in the Court of Arbitral Justice of 1907, as well as in the Permanent Court of International Justice of 1920, was to be judicial. Article 33 of the project was thus worded:

When a dispute has arisen between states, and it has been found impossible to settle it by diplomatic means, and no agreement has been made to choose another jurisdiction, the party complaining may bring the case before the court. The court shall, first of all, decide whether the preceding conditions have been complied with; if so, it shall hear and determine the dispute according to the terms and within the limits of the next article.

The Council recommended that the following article be substituted for it: The jurisdiction of the court is defined by Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Covenant. In reality, the new Article is a substitute for the jurisdiction contained in Article 34 of the project. The latter part of Article 34 reads as follows:

The court shall also take cognizance of all disputes of any kind which may be submitted to it by a general or particular convention between the parties.

In the event of a dispute as to whether a certain case comes within any of the categories above mentioned, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the court.

The Council recommended that it be replaced by an article of its new drafting:

Without prejudice to the right of the parties, according to Article 12 of the Covenant, to submit disputes between them either to judicial settlement or arbitration or to inquiry by the Council, the court shall have jurisdiction (and this without any special agreement giving it jurisdiction) to hear and determine disputes, the settlement of which is by treaties in force entrusted to it or to the tribunal instituted by the League of Nations.

Article 35 of the project is untouched, except that it is subjected to provisions of 57bis, an additional article drafted by the Council.

In view of the fact that the parties to the court may not, without a further agreement, sue one another, it was, of course, necessary to provide for the special agreement which the Council provided, and the procedure to be followed in such a case, which was lacking in the project which contemplated judicial, not arbitral, procedure. For this purpose, the Council drafted an additional Article, 36bis, whereof the text is as follows:

When the parties to a dispute agree to submit it to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the court shall, in the first place, apply the rules of procedure which may have been laid down in the agreement and, in the second place, in so far as they are applicable, the rules of procedure contained in The Hague Convention of 1907 for the pacific settlement of international disputes, always provided such rules are consistent with the provisions of Articles 1-36, 37, 39, 49 and 59 of the present convention.

The Advisory Committee of Jurists felt it necessary to have an official language. They unanimously agreed upon French. In this they did not innovate, but followed the practice of the past two centuries and more. They felt, however, that the parties in dispute might prefer another language. This they

authorized the court to permit. The Council, however, preferred two languages, French and English; or rather, the English members preferred English, and the power of the British Empire was great enough to force its acceptance. The court is apparently to be double-tongued until Great Britain can secure acceptance of English as the judicial language. In any event, one language is better than two, and it is to be feared that the substitute of the Council for Article 37 of the original project is far from happy. It is as follows:

The official languages of the court shall be French and English. If the parties agree that the case shall be conducted in French, the judgment will be delivered in French. If the parties agree that the case shall be conducted in English, the judgment will be delivered in English.

In the absence of an agreement as to which language shall be employed, each party may, in the pleadings, use the language which it prefers; the decision of the court will be given in both languages. In this case the court will at the same time determine which of the two texts shall be considered as authoritative.

The court may, at the request of the parties, authorize a language other than French or English to be used.

Article 56 of the project permitted a dissenting judge to state his dissent or reservations, without, however, setting forth the reasons in detail. Practice differs in different countries. The procedure based upon the civil law prefers the decision of the court without dissenting opinions. Anglo-American practice prefers dissenting opinions. English practice, however, prevailed in the Council, and Article 56 was thus amended: "Judges who do not concur in all or part of the judgment of the court may deliver a separate opinion."

Finally, the Council added the following new Article, 57bis: "The decision of the court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case."

The purpose of this article is clear. However, if the court is constituted and its decisions meet with approval, it will, little by little, lay down principles in special cases which apply to other cases of a more or less similar nature arising between other parties.

Such were the modifications proposed by the Council at its session at Brussels on October 27, 1920, and recommended by that body to the Assembly, which opened its meetings at Geneva, November 15, 1920. It is impossible to say, as the JOURNAL goes to press, whether the various amendments proposed by the Council were accepted by the Assembly on December 13, 1920. It appears, however, that the Council's opposition to obligatory jurisdiction has been approved by the Assembly, although the article proposed by the Council has been rejected. It has been replaced by a very skillful substitute, which will permit nations at the moment of signing it, just as in the case of the alternative procedure proposed in the additional protocol to the International Prize Court Convention, to accept obligatory procedure or not, as it may deem advisable in the interest of the court itself and of its own special interest. The new article on jurisdiction is thus given by the Associated Press:

The jurisdiction of the court comprises all cases which parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force. Members of the League and