1 Continuing the series of annual articles begun in this Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, January, 1923.

2 For the text, see Seventh Annual Report, Series E, No. 7, p. 76.

3 Ibid., p. 285.

4 League of Nations Document, A. 45. 1930. V.

5 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement 83, p. 9.

6 For a more extended analysis of the changes, see Hudson, Manley O., “The Amended Rules of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 427 Google Scholar.

7 Reported in Series D, No. 2 (2nd addendum).

8 Series E, No. 7, p. 199.

9 Series E, No. 7, pp. 108, 290.

10 Series D, No. 2 (2nd addendum), p. 223.

11 “Immediately at the close of the oral argument, the Court goes into conference for the purpose of determining whatever preliminary questions are involved, that is, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court, or with respect to the interpretation of the special agreement submitting the case to the Court, where question has been raised as to what is really before the Court for decision. This conference is entirely preliminary, and as soon as the Court has decided, and this does not generally take very long, as to what questions are before it, a day is fixed for the submission of preliminary or tentative opinions. Thereupon each judge, before any consultation among the members of the Court as to the merits, proceeds to write a preliminary opinion, or note, on the facts and the law. This is rather a thrilling experience. It is a practice that could be had only in a court with abundant time at its disposal. But I confess that I sometimes wish that every member of our courts were required after an argument to write out an opinion as a basis for the consultation. No judge cares to appear at a disadvantage, although the opinion, or note, as it is called, is only tentative. He does not care to disclose a failure to study the case or to apprehend its points, or to appreciate the weight of the respective arguments. His mentality is somewhat at stake as well as the controversy. The result is that he is likely to pay close attention to the oral arguments, to examine with care every document, to consult each important authority; he may even analyze the oral arguments as he has them day by day; he keeps thinking about crucial points, awaiting with deep interest the development of the argument.” Hughes, Charles E., “The World Court as a Going Concern,” 16 American Bar Association Journal (1930), p. 155 Google Scholar.

12 Series D, No. 2 (2nd addendum), pp. 300-301.

13 Series E, No. 7, p. 301.

14 Series D, No. 2 (2nd addendum), p. 300.

15 The text is published in Series D, No. 2 (2nd addendum), p. 300. Sir Cecil Hurst stated (ibid., p. 268) that it had been agreed that the text should be inserted in the annual report, but apparently (ibid., p. 267) such publication was to await a further decision by the Court, and the text was not included in Annual Report No. 7. The translation is by the writer.

16 Series E, No. 3, p. 177.

17 Series E, No. 7, p. 277.

18 The text of this convention is published in 16 Martens, , Nouveav. Recueil Géréral (3d ser.), p. 645 Google Scholar.

19 See Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 52, pp. 181, 190, 196, 201.

20 League of Nations Official Journal, 1927, p. 400.

21 Ibid., 1928, p. 156.

22 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 15, pp. 46–47.

23 See Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 52, p. 53.

24 Ibid., p. 35.

25 League of Nations Official Journal, 1930, p. 1521.

26 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 40.

27 See, also, Hudson, Manley O., “The World Court and the Austro-German Customs Regime,” 17 American Bar Association Journal (1931), p. 791 Google Scholar; Borchard, Edwin M., “The Customs Union Advisory Opinion,” this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 711 Google Scholar. Mr. Borchard’s statement that the Council “used the Court” and that the Court “permitted itself to be used to achieve a political goal” would seem to indicate that in his opinion no legal question was involved in this case. None of the judges took that view.

28 Apparently this protocol was not signed, but its text was established by exchange of notes. For the text, see League of Nations Official Journal, 1931, p. 1160.

29 Ibid., p. 1163.

30 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fasc. No. 41, p. 88. In an article on “National Judges in the Permanent Court of International Justice,” this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 670 at 681, Mr. Norman L. Hill gives a somewhat misleading account of this order.

31 Series A/B, Fascicule No. 41. See, also, Series C, No. 53.

32 Art. 88 of the Treaty of St. Germain reads as follows: “The independence of Austria is inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations. Consequently, Austria undertakes in the absence of the consent of the said Council to abstain from any act which might directly or indirectly or by any means whatever compromise her independence, particularly, and until her admission to membership of the League of Nations, by participation in the affairs of another Power.” For the complete text of the Treaty of St. Germain, see Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 14 (1920), p. 1, and 112 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 317.

33 The Geneva Protocol reads, in part, as follows: “The Government of the Federal Republic of Austria, of the other part, undertakes, in accordance with the terms of Article 88 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, not to alienate its independence; it will abstain from any negotiations or from any economic or financial engagement calculated directly or indirectly to compromise this independence. This undertaking shall not prevent Austria from maintaining, subject to the provisions of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, her freedom in the matter of customs tariffs and commercial or financial agreements, and, in general, in all matters relating to her economic régime or her commercial relations, provided always that she shall not violate her economic independence by granting to any State a special régime or exclusive advantages calculated to threaten this independence.” For the complete text of the Geneva Protocol, see 12 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 385.

34 See Davis, John W., “The World Court Settles the Question,” Atlantic Monthly, January, 1932, vol. 149, p. 119 Google Scholar.

35 League of Nations Official Journal, 1931, p. 2069.

36 See 6 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 189.

37 League of Nations Official Journal, 1931, p. 1137.

38 See this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 8.

39 Seventh Annual Report, Series E, No. 7, p. 275.

40 League of Nations Official Journal, 1929, p. 45.

41 League of Nations Document, C. 386, M. 170, 1930. VIII.

42 League of Nations Official Journal, 1931, p. 239.

43 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fasc. No. 42.

44 29 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 85.

45 League of Nations Document, C./65th Session/P. V. 1 (1). p. 13.

46 Series A/B, Fascicule No. 43.

47 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 189.

48 Procès Verbal of the Eleventh Session of the Council, p. 8.

49 Minutes of the Thirteenth Session of the Council, pp. 28, 198.

50 73 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 39.

51 103 Ibid., p. 434.

52 Registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations, No. 1970, March 8,1929, the date of its entry into force. 87 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 199.

53 League of Nations Document, C./65th Session/P. V. 1 (1). p. 15.

54 Court Document. Distr. 2265.

55 League of Nations Official Journal, 1931, p. 1809.

56 The text was supplied to the writer by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

57 See this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 19.

58 See League of Nations Document, A. 81. 1931. V.

59 League of Nations Official Journal, Supp. No. 92, p. 10.

60 A new advisory committee of jurists to consider further amendments is suggested in 12 British Year Book of International Law (1931), p. 107.

61 See this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 23.

62 League of Nations Official Journal, Supp. No. 92, p. 11.

63 League of Nations Document, C. 406. M. 166.1931. V.

64 Series E, No. 7, p. 340.

65 Ibid., p. 344.

66 The proceedings are reported in a document printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations, entitled Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Seventy-first Congress, third session, Relative to Protocols Concerning Adherence of the United States to the Court of International Justice, January 21, 1931. Mr. Root’s memorandum is reproduced in Hudson, Manley O., The World Court, 1921–1931, p. 235 Google Scholar.