¹ Root, E., “The need of popular understanding of international law,” in this Journal , Vol. I (1907), pp. 1–3 Google Scholar.

² Symons, F., Courses on international affairs in American Colleges, with Introduction by Shotwell, J. T., 1931, pp. 353 Google Scholar.

³ Professor Shotwell (work quoted above, n.2) gave warning in 1931 that the importance of the many courses on international affairs “must not be overestimated, because, frequently, it is only a consequence of the desire to be up to date,” only a question of a “journalistic interest in half-understood things.” Dean Vanderbilt laments to-day that the students coming to the law schools have obtained in their pre-legal training “no intimate knowledge of foreign relations in the broadest sense or any interest with respect to the matter” (Arthur T. Vanderbilt, A Report on Prelegal Education, published by American Bar Association, 1944, p. 42).

⁴ Gregory, , “The study of international law in Law Schools,” in American Law School Review, Vol. 2 (1907), p. 41 Google Scholar.

⁵ See this writer’s studies, Die nordamerikanische Völkerrechtsmssenschaft seit dem Weltkrieg, in Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, Vol. XIV, No. &, pp. 318–351, and “The American Science of International Law,” in Law: A Century of Progress, 1937, Vol. II, pp. 166–194.

⁶ Hudson, Manley O., “The teaching of international law in America,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of Teachers of International Law, Washington, 1928, pp. 178–189 Google Scholar.

⁷ Dickinson, Edwin D., “The Law School Curriculum,” in Proceedings of the 5th Conference of Teachers of International Law, Washington, 1933, pp. 117–122 Google Scholar.

⁸ Sir McNair, Arnold D., “The Need for Wider Teaching of International Law,” in Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 29, 1944, pp. 86–98 Google Scholar.

⁹ No international law was given at the law schools of the State Universities of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. No international law was given at the law schools of the following Universities: Boston College, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, DePaul, Duke, Emory, Louisville, Loyola (Los Angeles), Marquette, Newark, Pittsburgh, Richmond, St. Louis, San Francisco, Southern California, Southern Methodist, Syracuse. The lists, of course, are not complete.

¹⁰ Vanderbilt, Arthur T., “Law School Study after the War,” in New York University Law Quarterly Review, Vol. XX, No. 2 (Nov. 1944), pp. 146–164 Google Scholar, at p. 154.

¹¹ A Symposium in Legal Education after the War, Iowa Law Review, Vol. XXX, No. 3 (March, 1945), p. 326.

¹² Same, p. 326.

¹³ Vanderbilt, as cited above, note 10, pp. 154, 156.

¹⁴ Vanderbilt, as cited above, note 3, p. 42.

¹⁵ Dickinson, as cited.

¹⁶ McNair, as cited, p. 97.

¹⁷ Annual Report, 1944–1945, of the Dean of Harvard Law School, p. 12.

¹⁸ Vanderbilt, in work cited above, note 11, pp. 326–327.

¹⁹ “The views expressed by learned writers on international law have done in the past, and will do in the future, valuable service. … But in many instances their pronouncements must be regarded rather as the embodiments of their views as to what ought to be, from ai ethical standpoint, the conduct of nations inter se, than the enunciation of a rule or practic so universally approved or asserted to as to be fairly termed … ‘law’”: West Ran Central Gold Mining Co. v. The King, 1905, 2 K.B. 391.

²⁰ Dickinson, Edwin D., “International Law: An Inventory,” in California Law Review Vol. XXXIII, No. 4 (December 1945), pp. 506–542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 541.

²¹ Work cited, above, note 17, pp. 1, 9, 11, 12.