The fourteenth year of the Permanent Court of International Justice has been one of its lean years. The Court’s output has been small, and action by governments with reference to its maintenance and functioning has been somewhat less significant than in some of the earlier years.

During 1935, the Court was in session for 107 days as compared with 120- days in 1934,178 days in 1933, and 240 days in 1932. The 34th session, from February 1 to April 10, 1935, was largely devoted to the case relating to Minority Schools in Albania, in which an advisory opinion (the 26th) was given on April 6,1935. The 35th session, from October 28 to December 4, 1935, was largely devoted to the case relating to the Consistency of Certain Danzig Decrees with the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig, in which an advisory opinion (the 27th) was given on December 4,1935. At the close of the year two cases were pending on the docket of the Court.

The arbitration between Ethiopia and Italy, concerning the armed clash which occurred at Wal Wal, in the Ogaden, on December 5–6,1934, offers a number of interesting aspects to the student of international adjudication, and, indeed, to the student of international organization and procedure in general. In addition, the case should be recorded as such and for what it is worth while the materials are still available and while personal recollections of the incident are fresh.

The Italo-Ethiopian dispute has, at the time of writing, been dealt with by six distinct procedures in addition to direct diplomatic communication between the parties

(1) Mediation by the League of Nations Council under Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Covenant pursuant to the application of Ethiopia on January 15,1935. Under this procedure the Council received numerous communications from Italy and Ethiopia, considered the question during its meetings on January 17, April 15, May 25, July 31-August 3 and September 4-5, and passed several resolutions with the object of facilitating arbitration of the Wal Wal incident.

On April 1,1935, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration signed at Washington January 5, 1929. An attached reservation was a revision of one of two reservations included in a resolution of advice and consent which the Senate had adopted on January 19, 1932. This is one of the somewhat rare instances of the reconsideration of a reservation by the Senate, in this case resulting in improvement of a condition imposed by that body.

The recent case of Factor v. Laubenheimer raised several interesting questions with regard to the date of effectiveness of the extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed at London, December 22,1931, and the effect, if any, of the President’s proclamation of the treaty upon its status as law of the land of the United States. Article 18 of the treaty provided that it was to “come into force ten days after its publication, in conformity with the forms prescribed by the laws of the high contracting parties.” Ratifications were exchanged at London, August 4,1932; the President issued a proclamation in the usual form containing the treaty, as of the date August 9,1932; but the British Government withheld the issuance of an Order-in-Council containing the treaty, apparently to avoid affecting the result in the Factor Case. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the treaty was in force, but the Supreme Court, without going into the merits of the contention, followed the State Department, which appeared not to have recognized the treaty as in force in either country. The court, after examining the terms of the 1931 agreement found that even if it had come into effect as contended it would not have abated the pending proceedings. In several previous cases incidentally involving Presidential proclamations of treaties, the court has also been able to dispose of the principal issues raised without pronouncing upon the status and effect of such proclamations. On some future occasion, perhaps, the court may find it necessary to rule squarely upon the relation of the President’s proclamation of an international agreement to its status in domestic law. The present discussion is devoted to an examination of that relation, which includes the date of effectiveness of a treaty; the history of the use of the proclamation; and the effect of the proclamation upon the status of the treaty as law of the land.