munication when no other means were available. They have transported American missionaries, philanthropists, relief workers, and business men, saving days and weeks of time when no other adequate means of transportation were available. They have assisted in the evacuation of refugees and they have been instrumental in serving manifold humanitarian purposes. It is a pleasure to commend the admirable work that has been performed by the officers and men of these vessels.

Mandated territories.-Under the recent peace settlement between the Allied Powers and Turkey, the Arab portion of the former Turkish Empire is detached from Turkey. In Syria a mandate is being exercised by France and in Palestine by Great Britain, while in Mesopotamia a native kingdom is being developed under British guidance. These territorial changes have made it incumbent upon the United States to readjust its treaty relations which, with respect to these territories, were formerly controlled by our treaty with Turkey. In its correspondence with the British and French Governments in relation to these territories, this Government has made clear its position that the changed situation is a consequence of the common victory of the Allied and Associated Powers over Germany, and that in view of its relation to this victory the United States is entitled to insist that no measure could properly be taken which would subject the United States to discrimination, or deprive its nationals within these territories of equality of treatment with the nationals of any other power.

The rights of states which are members of the League of Nations are set forth in the terms of the French mandate for Syria and of the British mandate for Palestine, respectively. As the United States is not a member of the League of Nations, separate agreements are being negotiated with Great Britain and France under which the United States is to secure in these territories all rights and privileges enjoyed by states which are members of the League of Nations. Under these treaties American interests would be adequately safeguarded. There has been a development in Mesopotamia along slightly different lines, in view of the establishment of an Arab government with which Great Britain has concluded a treaty, and as soon as this situation has been further clarified this Government will not fail to take proper steps to regularize its relations with the appropriate authorities of Irak with a view to the protection in Mesopotamia, as in Syria and Palestine, of American interests.

Persia.-The Persian Government more than a year ago sought the aid of American experts in the reorganization of their finances. While this Government could not assume any responsibility in this matter, it was glad that the services of competent American citizens could be secured, and a financial mission accordingly proceeded to Persia and for the past year has been rendering important expert aid, as Persian officials, to the Persian ministers in reorganizing the financial administration of the country. While this is not an official mission of this country in any sense, it has helped to

cement the relations between the two countries, making more firm the ties of mutual friendship and esteem.

Greece. The death of the late King Alexander of Greece was followed in December, 1920, by the return to Athens of Constantine. In accordance with the usual practice in the case of monarchical countries, the Greek representative in Washington tendered new letters of credence the acceptance of which would have constituted formal recognition of the new government. In view of the special circumstances which attended Constantine's return to Athens, it was deemed important, before according recognition, to take into account not only the part that Constantine had played in the war but also the policy of the new régime with regard to the acts and obligations of its predecessor and the attitude of the associates of the United States in the war. With respect to Constantine's attitude toward the engagements of the former government, there was for a time an uncertainty whether Constantine considered the government of King Alexander as a de jure government. This was important, for if the Government of the United States had extended recognition it might have put itself in a position of acquiescing in a possible review of the acts of King Alexander's Government which had borrowed substantial sums from the United States. It will also be recalled that none of the principal Allied Powers recognized Constantine subsequent to his return.

So far as the records indicate, these considerations controlled the policy of the United States Government during the period subsequent to Constantine's return and prior to March, 1921. Upon the change of administration the question arose whether there was a sufficient reason for changing this policy and for taking a course of action different from that followed by the Allied Powers. Other considerations had intervened making affirmative action in the matter of recognition undesirable. Constantine developed a militaristic policy in Asia Minor, in which Greece was already engaged, by which he desired to justify his hold upon the throne.

Separate action by the United States at this time could hardly have been interpreted otherwise than as an expression of sympathy and support by this Government for this policy of Constantine and as an indirect participation in the politics of the Near East which it was desired to avoid. The wisdom of refusing recognition was indicated by the overthrow of Constantine when Greek military plans in Asia Minor failed, an overthrow which was attended by a complete revolution. It will be recalled that Constantine fled the country and that his prominent supporters and cabinet ministers were arrested and after summary trials were executed. The British Government, which previously had maintained a chargé d'affaires in Athens, although not recognizing Constantine, withdrew this representative, while the representatives of other powers, including that of the United States, took occasion to interpret to the Greek authorities the unfortunate impression which the execution of the Greek ministers had caused.

The régime which succeeded that of Constantine was frankly based on military power and did not regularize its position by holding elections. Meanwhile the negotiation of a treaty of peace between the Allied Powers, Greece and Turkey, was undertaken at Lausanne, and it seemed undesirable, pending the conclusion of these negotiations, for the United States to take separate action in the matter of recognition.

The situation has now materially changed. The Lausanne negotiations have been concluded, peace has now been ratified by Greece and Turkey, and elections were held in Greece on December 16, 1923. These elections, it is hoped, will result in the establishment of a government which will enable this Government to extend formal recognition. The fact that recognition has not been extended during the past three years does not indicate an attitude of unfriendliness toward the Greek people. What American agencies have done in assisting the refugees in Greece is clear evidence to the contrary, and this humanitarian work could not have been carried out more effectively even if formal relations had been resumed, thanks to the initiative of American agencies and the helpful cooperation of the Greek authorities.

Egypt. I should not omit the mention of the recognition of Egypt, where we have had a minister for a considerable time, and whose minister in turn we are now receiving. We have a deep interest in the most cordial relations with Egypt and it is interesting to note that the Egyptian Government has been anxious to take advantage of the facilities offered in this country for perfecting the technical education of Egyptian students, particularly along lines of trade and engineering. A group of students came to the United States a year ago and other similar student missions are now on their way.

In conclusion, I may say that the new spirit of the Near East must be met sympathetically, not by arms, not by attempts at dictatorship or by meddlesome interventions, but by candor, directness, and just appreciation of nationalistic aims and by a firm but friendly insistence upon the discharge of those international obligations, the recognition of which affords the only satisfactory basis for the intercourse of nations. In this way the Orient and the Occident may find ground for cooperation and for the maintenance of peace sustained by the reciprocal advantages of cultural relations.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW 1

BY BARON S. A. KORFF

Professor of Political Science and History, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.

I. THE ANCIENT WORLD

For a long time writers on international law took it for granted that the subject of their studies was a relatively recent product of modern civilization, and that the ancient world did not know any system of international law. If we go back to the literature of the nineteenth century, we can find a certain feeling of pride among internationalists that international law was one of the best fruits of our civilization and that it was a system which distinguished us from the ancient barbarians. Some of these writers paid special attention to this question of origins and endeavored to explain why the ancient world never could have had any international law.2

As time went on, however, and modern historical investigations were constantly and persistently digging deeper into the past ages, this theory had to be considerably altered and finally discarded. Many interesting studies have appeared, some concerning Greece, others relating to more ancient times, but all of them bringing to light a whole mass of material which confirms the exact opposite point of view, namely, that the ancient world knew very well the meaning of international relations and was making use of an elaborate system of institutions, well developed and firmly established. The laws of Hammurabi, the excavations and papyri of Egypt, the tablets of Babylonia and Assyria, etc., brought us an abundance of material, so that there can be no more doubt on the question. These results may be summed up in a short sentence: as soon as there developed a cultural center of a certain level of civilization, a state of some prominence, there grew up simultaneously relations with the outside world that soon took the shape

1 This article is based upon the first of a series of lectures on "The Historical Development of International Law from the Seventeenth Century," delivered by the author before the Academy of International Law at The Hague. This lecture was delivered on July 16, 1923, and was the first lecture delivered before the Academy, which was formally opened in the Peace Palace on July 14, 1923. (See editorial in the October, 1923, number of this JOURNAL, Vol. 17, page 746.)—EDITOR.

Laurent is probably the most prominent representative of that school of thought. This point of view was defended also by Th. Martens, on whose famous text book more than one generation of lawyers based their education.

Sir Paul Vinogradoff, Outlines of Historical Jurisprudence, Vol. II.

of a whole system of institutions. In other words, such a system was the necessary consequence of any civilization and was as old as human culture in general. One matter of importance must be remembered in this connection: the ancient peoples of Asia or Africa were well acquainted with international relations and law. Further, there is another striking consequence: the careful analysis of these relations of different ancient civilizations reveals a remarkable similarity in their main lines of development. Take, for example, the history of ambassadorial missions, the question of extradition of fugitive criminals, the protection of certain classes of foreigners, and, above all, the sanctity of international contracts. In the growth of all these institutions identical principles prevail everywhere, in Sumer or Thebes, in Nineveh or Athens, and down to Rome.

The explanation of the mistake of our teachers of the nineteenth century is a very simple one. They were not acquainted with the history of the ancient civilizations. In their time that branch of historical research was hardly started; most facts concerning those bygone ages were absolutely unknown. Martens or Wheaton, Laurent or Coleman Phillipson, thus invariably commenced their detailed investigations with the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648. Today they seem dilettante, naïvely convinced that international law was a product of modern times only. New horizons have been opened to us, new vistas have been disclosed into the past ages, that compel us to change our point of view and accept new methods of research. We have now some excellent works concerning the ancient world. For instance, Marcus Niebuhr Tod, International Arbitration among the Greeks, Oxford, 1913; A. Reader, L'arbitrage international chez les Hellenes, 1912; E. Täubler, Imperium Romanum: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Römischen Reichs, Staatsverträge, 1913; von Scala, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, Leipzig, 1898. But most important are the first attempts of generalization in this field, of summing up the results of recent historical investigation, by Chybichovski, Vinogradoff and Rostovsteff, who give us an entirely new and intensely interesting picture of ancient social and political life." Thus, under the influence of these new studies, our point of view concerning the historical development of international relations and law has necessarily but drastically changed. We know now that it is not our civilization that created these institutions, but that every civilization possessed whole systems of them; that they are first a necessary product of social life, and secondly, that they had everywhere many traits in common and do not belong exclusively, as was formerly supposed, to Europe. It is to be regretted that these first attempts have not yet been followed by a general treatise drawing attention to the modern historical investigations of ancient epochs and showing the gradual growth of institutions of international law and of their great and guiding principles.

'Chybichovski, Antikes Völkerrecht; Vinogradoff, Outline of Historical Jurisprudence, Vol. II, 1923; M. Rostovtseff, American Historical Review, January, 1921.