Several important events have marked the seventh year in the history of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The court was in session at The Hague from February 6, 1928, to April 26, 1928 (thirteenth session); from June 15, 1928, to September 13, 1928 (fourteenth session); and from November 12, 1928, to November 21, 1928 (fifteenth session). It handed down two advisory opinions (Nos. 15 and 16) and two judgments (Nos. 12 and 13), and several important orders. It lost the services of two eminent judges through the resignation of Judge John Bassett Moore and the death of Judge André Weiss. A settlement was reached with the Netherlands Government of the long-standing question as to the privileges and immunities of the judges and registry officials; and, what is perhaps more important for the court’s future, the signatories of the court’s protocol of signature began the consideration of changes in the court’s statute in the light of seven years’ experience. The seventh year marks progress in the establishment of the court’s position as the chief agency in the world for the international administration of justice, as it marks also changes which will affect the future of the court.

On March 27, 1928, the United States Department of State issued the following public statement:

With nationality problems continuing to occupy a prominent place in both international and municipal practice, expressions of opinion of our highest tribunal upon the subject are received with peculiar interest. This is particularly true where the rule announced is one which governs the validity of naturalization judgments. In a recent sweeping naturalization decision which upholds the government’s views at every point, the United States Supreme Court has again stressed the rule that when doubt exists concerning a grant of citizenship, the statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the United States and against the alien. On October 22, 1928, the court handed down its opinion in the case of Anna Marie Maney, Petitioner, v. The United States of America, in which it affirmed, on writ of certiorari, the judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The latter court had directed the cancellation of the applicant’s certificate of naturalization as having been “illegally procured” because of her failure to file, at the prescribed time and in the required manner, the certificate of her arrival in the United States.

The law of unneutral service deals with those acts of neutral vessels which constitute assistance to a belligerent, significant enough in consequences to give the offender a hostile character. It must be emphasized that, contrary to the inferences of some writers, unneutral service has nothing to do with acts committed by a hostile state. There are rules dealing with such acts, but they are not comprehended within the meaning of the term which is the subject of this discussion.

The question of the form to be given to reservation clauses has long perplexed the advocates of arbitration treaties. The making of the new Franco-American treaty, action taken at the Sixth Pan American Conference looking to a conference on an American arbitration convention, and more recent discussion of plans for the prevention of war have re-emphasized the problem which has commanded chief attention during four decades of sporadic effort to establish obligatory arbitration on a treaty basis. Important extensions of the principle of obligatory reference have been effected in certain bipartite arrangements since the conclusion of the World War, largely through revision of old forms by which arbitral jurisdiction was limited. Built upon past experience, these extensions are the result of efforts to shape reservation clauses so as to modify them in the interest of state security, without at the same time nullifying, the arbitral engagements. The theory of reservation clauses has found application in a variety of forms. An examination of these forms in some representative modern agreements reveals the manner in which phrases now used have evolved and especially the development occurring since 1919.

Numerous interpretative notes were exchanged by the Powers prior to signature of the General Pact for the Renunciation of War on August 27, 1928. Secretary Kellogg was reported to have said on August 8 that these interpretations “are in no way a part of the pact and can not be considered reservations. The interpretations will not be deposited with the text of the treaty.” It has, however, been asserted that “the interpretations and declarations, made in the diplomatic correspondence before the signature of the treaty, and either agreed to or not dissented from, are just as binding and just as much within the meaning of the treaty as if they were written into the treaty text.” This obviously denies any importance to the distinction between interpretative notes and reservations implied in Secretary Kellogg’s statement.