Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:50:15.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governments de Facto

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Everett P. Wheeler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

International law, perhaps more than any other branch of the science, is progressive. In its study, the elements of this progress should be traced to their origin. International law has been a growth of mutual understanding between nations, developed out of necessities of particular situations, ripening gradually from precedent to precedent and finally formulated and codified in international conventions and treaties. Of these the most notable are the conventions adopted at the two conferences held at The Hague in 1899 and 1907.

It is not surprising to find that times of war have given rise to many of the rules which nations have gradually come to recognize and embodied in the system which has become common to them all. In times of peace the situation adapts itself more readily to the requirements of each nation. War necessarily displaces the ordinary course of business and human conduct.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 1911 , pp. 66 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1911

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 3 Inat. 7; 4 Bla. Comm. 77, 78; 1 Hawkins P. C. 87, 89. Blackstone’s language is (p. 78) : “When, therefore, ал usurper is in possession, the subject is excused and justified in obeying and giving him assistance.”

2 Hall, , International Law (6th Ed.), 425, 458-463Google Scholar.

3 Ibid, pp. 466, 471.

4 Ibid, p. 471.

5 Calvo, , le Droit International, Vol. 4, § 2207Google Scholar, ibid., § 2205, thus states the law : “ De lu le droit de continuer l’exploitation reguliere du domaine nationale située sur le territoire occupé, mais en aucun cas cette exploitation ne doit dégénérer en exactions ou en déprédations abusives!”

6 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar, Bentzon Cl’t, 9 Cra. 191 (1815); see also the Phoenix 5 C. Rob. 20 (1803).

7 5 C. Rob. 161 (1804).

8 City of New Orleans v. New York Mail SS. Co., 20 Wall. 387 (1874) (Book 22, Law. Ed. 354).

9 Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164 (1853).

10 To the same effect is Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176 (1857).

11 214 U. S. 260 (1909); s. p. Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222 (1901).

12 Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176 (1857).

13 7 Peters 57 (1833); s. p. The Fama, 5 C. Rob. 106 (1804); Vattel, Book III, c. 13. § 200.

14 Scott, , The Hague Peace Conferences, vol. II, pp. 368, 376Google Scholar.

15 Scott, , The Hague Peace Conferences, vol. II, pp. 397, 401Google Scholar. These are also to be found in the English ed. of Wheaton, p. 561.

16 Hadley, Roman Law, p. 192.

17 Ibid, p. 192.

18 Domat, , Civil Law, § 998, trs. Boston, Strahan ed., vol. I, p. 424 Google Scholar.

19 Bousquet, Abrégé des Lois Civiles de Domat, p. 81.

20 This Journal, 1:226-236, rendered Oct. 23, 1909.

21 Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202 (1890).

22 Goodyear Co. v. Rubber Tire Co., 164 Fed. 869 (1908).

23 1 Wall. 400, 404 (1864).

24 1 Kent Comm. 178, note a; s. p. In re Chavez, 149 Fed. 73 (1906), C. C. A., 8 Circuit; U. S. v. Percheman, 7 Peters, 51, 86 (1833).

25 Ainsa v. New Mexico & Ariz. R. R., 175 U. S. 76, 79 (1899).

26 American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 166 Fed. 261, 266 (1908), 213 U. S. 347 (1909); this Journal, 3:1006.

27 Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1, 35 (1906) ; this Journal, 1:201.

28 205 U. S. 257 (1907) ; this Journal, 1:784.

29 Coffee v. Groover, 123 U. S. 1 (1887).

30 McCormick v. Sullivan, 10 Wheat. 192 (1825).