Diplomatic relations of Texas and the United States. 1839-43. Thomas Maitland Marshall. Q. of Texas State Hist. Assoc., 15: 267. April. Trade. The first English-Japanese trade treaty, signed by Tokugawa Iyeyasu in 1613. Oriental R., 2:349. May. American commerce and capital abroad. John Ball Osborne. N. Amer. R., 195: 687. May. Treaties. Treaties and their value. R. of R., 45:132. Feb. Trent Affair. Trent affair, The. Charles F. Adams. Am. Hist. R., 17: 540. April. Triple Alliance. Italy's policy and her position in Europe. J. Ellis Barker. Fort. R., 91 (97):11. Jan. Österreich-Ungarn, Russland und Italian. Von "Einem österreichischen Politiker." Öster. Runds., 31:171. May. Tripoli. Delle cosiddette "occupazioni qualificate. C. Ghirardini. R. di dir. int. Seconde serie, 1:34. Europe et la guerre italo-turque, L'. René Pinon. R. des deux mondes, 9:599. June. Failure of Russia's efforts to stop the war. E. J. Dillon. Contemp., 101: 574. April. Friede zwischen Italien und der Turkei. Hans Wehberg. Friedens-Warte, 14: 132. April. Guerre italo-turque et le droit des gens. Andréa Rapisardi-Mirabelli. R. de dr. int. et de légis. comp., 14:159. Invasion of Tripoli, The. "Master Mariner." Contemp., 101:49. Jan. Viscount Combes de Lestrade. Le Corresp., 84:3. Italienische Gefahr, Die. "Spectator Germanicus." Suddeutsche Monatsh, 9:337. June. Mobilisation et les effetifs du corps expeditionnaire italien de Tripolitaine. Colonel Malleterre. Q. Dip., 32:321. March. Nostra guerra con las Turchia, La. R. di dir. int. Seconde serie, 1:54. Senussi and the military strength in Tripoli, The. A. Silva White. 19th Cent., 71: 1202. June. Story of Russia's persistent efforts to stop the war, The. E. J. Dillon. Contemp. R., 101:427. March. Turco-Italian war; how long will it last, The. E. J. Dillon. Contemp., 101: 270. Feb. War between Italy and Turkey. Fears of powers over the Balkans. Cur. Lit., 52:17. May. Turkey. Réforme militaire Ottomane, La. E. N. Q. Dip., 32: 287, 332. March. Presse musulmane, La. H. Marchand. Q. Dip., 32: 470. April. June. Situation in Turkey, The. Sir Edwin Pears. Contemp., 101: 761. United States of America. American diplomacy in Central America. P. M. Brown. Am. Pol. Sci. R., 6:sup. 152. Feb. Feb. American foreign policy. Sydney Brooks. Liv. Age, 271:603. Dec. Dollar diplomacy and the Pacific Coast. A. R. Pinci. Overland, n. s., 59:317. April. Nov. Our country the world. H. H. Bridgman. New England M., n. s., 45:324. De l'organisation et des attributions du corps consulaire des Etats-Unis d'Amérique. Ernest Lehr. R. de dr. int. et de légis. comp., 14:5. Our first treaty with France. Chauncey M. Depew. May. National M., 36:150. Point of view of Latin America on the inter-American policy of the United States. H. Gil. Am. Pol. Sci. R., 6:sup. 164. Feb. Your United States. Arnold Bennett. Harper's, 124:651, 892. April, May. War. America's lost opportunity to end war. Cur. Lit., 52:193. Feb. Feb. Bankers as peace guardians. David S. Jordan. World To-Day, 21:1786. Causes economiques de la guerre, Les. Ch. Gide. Mouvement Pacifiste, 1:134. May. Chief causes of war to-day, The. Lujo Brentano. Peace movement, 1:96. April. Deutsche Volksernährung im Kriege. Georg Frölich. Jahr. f. Gesetzgebung Verwalt. und Volksw. in Deutschen Reich, 36:61. Do wars originate in economic causes? Charles Gide. Peace Movement, 1:130. May. Foreclosing the mortgage on war. David S. Jordan. World's Work, 24:205. Great Britain, Germany and limited war. N. Amer. R., 195:754. June. Edinb. R., 215:484. April. Heutigen Hauptursachen des Krieges, Die. Lujo Brentano. Die FriedensBewegung, 1:95, April. Insurance of peace. J. M. Palmer. Scrib. M., 51:186. Feb. Is war essential to heroism? R. of R., 45:349. March. March. May. Richard Gädke. Friedens-Warte, 14:84. Krieg, der Vater aller Dinge, Der. Richard Gädke. Friedens-Warte, 14: 166. Place of doctrine in war. Edinb. R., 215:1. Jan. Place of force in international relations. A. T. Mahan. N. Amer. R., 195:28. Jan. Principales causes de l'insecurite actuelle, Les. Lujo Brentano. Le Mouvement Pacifiste, 1:96. April. Russische Generalstabswerk über den Krieg mit Japan, Das. Von v. Kurnatowski. Deutsche Runds., 38: 153. April. Soldier or the ballot, The. David Lambuth. Ind., 72: 829. April. Ueber das Kriegsgespenst in Europa. von Mannisch. Deutsche R., 37: 269. June. Jan. War and business. C. Childe. Harper's M., 55:12. Dec. War and civilization. R. M. MacIver. Int. J. Ethics, 22:127. Jan. Wirtschaftlichen Ursachen des Krieges, Die. Charles Gide. Die FriedensBewegung, 1:124. May. World's unrest in Tripoli, Persia and China. Woman Suffrage. Position of woman suffrage, The. temp., 101:840. June. World's Work, 23:458. Feb. E. Crayshay-Williams. Con KATHRYN SELLERS. THE "PROTOCOLE ADDITIONNEL" TO THE INTERNA TIONAL PRIZE COURT CONVENTION On September 19, 1910, at The Hague, plenipotentiaries of the following nations: Germany, United States of America, Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Chile, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden, signed an instrument entitled Protocole Additionnel à la Convention XII de la Haye du 18 Octobre, 1907.1 The protocol is by its own provisions (Art. 8) to be considered as forming an integral part of the Convention creating the International Court of Prize; and the acceptance of the protocole additionnel is likewise made 2 a sine qua non to the acceptance of the original convention. The protocole additionnel seeks to create a different remedy and a modified procedure par dérogation to Articles 28 (paragraph one), 29 and 45 (paragraph two) of the Prize Court Convention and by eliminating Article 8 of the convention entirely and substituting therefor a method preserving the appearance of an action de novo in the International Court and confining its judgment to the ascertainment of the damages to be allowed an injured claimant. It is the practical embodiment of the voeu adopted by the London Naval Conference in 1909 at the instance of the delegation of the United States (acting under instructions from their government); and is intended to offer a means whereby certain nations named as parties to the protocol may obviate constitutional difficulties in the way of their ratifying the original convention.3 1 An English translation is given in AMERICAN Journal of InteRNATIONAL LAW, Supplement to Vol. V, pp. 95–99. The French text is given by Charles Dupuis in the Appendix to Le Droit de la Guerre Maritime (Paris, 1911) with, however, a material omission, namely, the entire second paragraph of Article 2. 2 Article 9. L'adhesion à la Convention est subordonné à l'adhesion au présent protocole additionnel. 3 For a statement of these difficulties, see "The International Court of Prize," by James Brown Scott in AMERICAN Journal of InterNATIONAL LAW, Vol. V, pp. 302– 324. Professor Scott was the plenipotentiary of the United States by whom the protocole additionnel was signed. The plenipotentiaries, who signed the protocol at The Hague in 1910, were not the successors to the body that adopted the convention relating to the International Court of Prize, for they were not similarly coveened or constituted. They were without power to amend said convention. That they recognized this is apparent from the form and terms of the protocole additionnel. The protocol specifically names the parties to the contract, being the thirteen Powers by whose plenipotentiaries it was signed. It is an agreement between them and them alone. It grants no other one of the thirty-one Powers signatory to the original convention, to which it is supplemental, the right or privilege of becoming a party to the protocol - such as were granted non-signatories in Article 53 of the original convention itself and in Article 70 of the Declaration of London. Assuming that a way will be opened for other Powers to join in the protocole additionnel, and that the International Prize Court will be accepted in some form, the constitution of the court will vary with respect to the form of the ratifications of the Powers as follows: (1) as to that group of Powers ratifying unconditionally the original convention alone; (2) as to that group ratifying the original convention coupled with the Declaration of London; (3) as to that group ratifying the original convention, the Declaration of London, and the protocole additionnel; (4) as to that group ratifying the original convention and the protocole addi tionnel. It is not without the bounds of reasonable probability, if ratifications should be general, all four groups would be represented, and an interesting situation created which it is not our purpose to analyze here. We have now to do only with the third and fourth groups, those including in their ratifications the protocole additionnel, and to consider some of the It is interesting to consider in this connection the explanation, which was commended by the American delegation, given in the London Conference by M. Renault in presenting the report of the committee to which the American proposal, later embodied in the protocole additionnel was referred: “* * * seules les trente et une Puissances Signataires pourront décider ces modifications, toutes étant d'accord. Le Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Amérique pourra faire, après la Conférence, une proposition dans un esprit conforme à celui qui est indiqué par le voeu, et cette proposition devra être admise par l'ensemble de tous les États Signataires." Page 223. Proceedings of the International Naval Conference, British Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous, No. 5 (1909). |