^{page 120 note 1} General Assembly Official Records, seventh session, 6th Committee, 318th meeting, 4 11 1952, p. 81Google Scholar. Also in Israel and the United Nations, Report of a Study Group set up by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, (New York, 1956) p. 249.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 2} For a remarkable approach to this topic, see Jenks, , “, Craftsmanship in International Law” in American Journal of International Law, vol. 50 (1956) p. 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 120 note 3} A similar provision, mutatis mutandis, is contained in Article 8 of the Statute of the International Law Commission.

^{page 121 note 1} Numelin, , The Beginnings of Diplomacy (London and Copenhagen, 1950).Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 2} A valuable bibliography will be found in Jenks's article previously cited.

^{page 121 note 3} This negative conclusion is confirmed by perusal of Landheer and van Essen, , Fundamentals of Public International Law, Selective Bibliographies of the Peace Palace, I (Leyden, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 1} Vitoria's works on international law, De Indis et de jure belli Relectiones, were parts of his theological lectures Relectiones Theologicae XII at Salamanca University, and published posthumously in 1537. They were reissued in the Carnegie Endowment's series of Classics of International Law, with an introduction by the Belgian scholar Nys, (Washington, 1917)Google Scholar. See also Getino, , El Maestro Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, su vida, su doctrina e influencia (Madrid, 1930).Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 1} Suárez was a prolific writer. He held various academic posts, ultimately being appointed professor of theology at the University of Coimbra. His contributions to international law are scattered throughout his works, but his most important specific piece is.the De bello, being Disputatio XIII of his De triplici viriate theologica, fide, spe et charitate, (Coimbra, 1621).Google Scholar Reissued in the Carnegie series, with an introduction by the American scholar Scott, two vols. (London, 1944). And see Pereña, , Teoría de la Guerra en Francisco Suárez (two vols. Madrid, 1954)Google Scholar; Pereña, , Suárez: Guerra, Intervención, Paz Internacional (Madrid, 1956).Google Scholar For a recent study in English, see O'Connell, , “The Rational Foundations of International Law—Francisco Suárez and his concept of the Jus Gentium” in Sydney Law Review, vol. 2 (1957) p. 253.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 3} His De jure et officili bellicis et disciplina militare libri VII (Douay, 1582)Google Scholar was written for the assistance of his military colleagues. It was reissued in the Carnegie series, two vols. (Washington, 1912). This work, with its mixture of law and regulations for the maintenance of military discipline, reminds us in parts of the Laws of Kings and Wars in the Code of Maimonides. Careful research might show whether this resemblance is purely coincidental or not. And see Frage, , “Baltasar de Ayala” in Revista Española de Derecho Internacional, vol. 1 (1949) p. 125.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 4} E.g. Domingo de Soto (1495–1560), see Carro, , Domingo de Soto y su doctrina jurídica (Madrid, 1943)Google Scholar; Vázquez de Menchaca (1512–1569), see Trelles, Barcia in Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, vol. 67 (1939) p. 433Google Scholar; Luis de Molina (1535–1600), see Fraga, , Luis de Molina y el Derecho de la Guerra (Madrid, 1947)Google Scholar; Sepulvada, , ‘hijo de padres … no contaminados con moros, judíos o conversos’ (1490–1573)Google Scholar, see Losada, , Democrates Segundo, o de las justas causas de la Guerra contra los Indios (Madrid, 1951), etc.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 5} The Code was written in Cairo and completed in 1180. It enjoyed a wide circulation in European Jewry, especially Spanish Jewry, before the expulsion in 1492. It also generated important controversies in Jewish circles.

^{page 124 note 1} Cf. Nys, “Les ‘Siete Partidas’ et le droit de guerre” in Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée, vol. 15 (1883) p, 478.Google Scholar It is known that Jewish savants collaborated in this work, among them one Rabbi Jacob. See Garcia Arias, Adiciones, in Nussbaum, , Historia del Derecho Internacional (Madrid, 1949) p. 341.Google Scholar Nys avoids mention of the collaboration of non-Christian scholars in the compilation of this work.

^{page 124 note 2} Pereña, , Teoría de la Guerra (cited) pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar has attempted a critical examination of the “sources” used by Suárez, but his work is inconclusive on this aspect.

^{page 124 note 3} His major works are De legationibus (London, 1585)Google Scholar, De jure belli libri III (Hanau, 1598)Google Scholar and a posthumous collection of opinions, Hispanicae advocationis libri duo (Hanau and Frankfurt, 1612), reissued in the Carnegie series with introductions by Nys (New York, 1924), Phillipson (Oxford, 1933) and Abbott (New York, 1921) respectively. And see van der Molen, Alberico Gentili and the Development of International Law (Amsterdam, 1937).Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 4} Ad I Maccabaeorum disputatio (Frankfort, 1600). We have not been able to examine this text.

^{page 125 note 1} De jure belli, I, 1, Carnegie translation p. 11.

^{page 125 note 2} Cf. on this aspect, Isaacs, , “The Influence of Judaism on Western Law” in The Legacy of Israel (corrected impression, Oxford, 1928), p. 377.Google Scholar For a recent partial reassessment which, while possibly open to considerable criticism on matters of detail, is nevertheless suggestive on matters of methodology, see Kagan, , Three Great Systems of Jurisprudence (London, 1955).Google Scholar One of the earliest attempts to compare Jewish and Roman Law was the Mosaicamm et Romanarum Legum Collatio, of unknown authorship, compiled during the fifth century a.d. On this work (which has been published several times since 1573), see among others Hyamson, , Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio (London, 1913)Google Scholar and Smits, , Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio (Haarlem, 1934).Google Scholar There exists controversy between the Jewish and the Christian scholars whether the author of this work was a Jew or a Christian. It seems to us that this is hardly a legal work, and more likely is to be classified as apologetic literature. It is a fit subject for a comprehensive monograph by a research worker making full use of all relevant Hebrew source materials.

^{page 125 note 3} His principal works on international law are: De jure praedae commentarius, written in 1604 but not published until 1868, and the famous De jure belli ac pacis (Paris, 1625), both reissued in the Carnegie series with introductions by Finch (two vols., Oxford, 1950) and Scott (two vols. Washington, 1913 and Oxford, 1925). Grotius, 's Mare Liberum (Leyden, 1609)Google Scholar, republished, with translation and introduction by Scott under the title The Freedom of the Seas (New York, 1916)Google Scholar, is the twelfth chapter of the 1604 work. It provoked an important controversy with the Englishman John Seiden (see below), and others.

^{page 126 note 1} Barbeyrac in his French translation (Amsterdam, 1724), vol. I p. 31 indicates, following Gronovius, that Grotius has in mind Bodin and other “Judaizing Christians”.

^{page 126 note 2} Sharply criticised by Barbeyrac, loc. cit., who adds disparaging remarks about the Rabbis and their methods of exegesis. In his translation these paragraphs appear respectively as XLIX and XL. Grotius himself pointed out that this sentiment was first expressed by Cassian. The above translation by Wilson, originally published in the Classics of International Law, is taken from American Journal of International Law, vol. 35 (1941) 205 at p. 223.Google Scholar The latter half of Section 48, and the whole of Section 49, are omitted from the latest translation by Loomis, , The Law of War and Peace, (New York, 1949) p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 3} The text, which came to light in the famous Nijhoff auction of 1864 and which since 1899 has been in the possession of the Ets Hayim Library in Amsterdam, has recently been published by J. Meijer entitled: Hugo de Groot (sic): Remonstrantie nopende de ordre dije in de landen van Hollandt ende Westorieslandt dijent gesteh op de Joden (Amsterdam, 1949).Google Scholar See also his “Hugo Grotius' Remonstrantie” in Jewish Social Studies, vol. 17 (1955) p. 91Google Scholar; and van Eysinga, , “Hugo Grotius' Jodenreglement” in Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Weten-schappenGoogle Scholar, afd. Letterk., nieuwe reeks, deel 13, 1950 No. 1 p. 1.

^{page 127 note 1} Grotii, H.Epistolae Quotquot, 1687, p. 286Google Scholar (No. 693). See Balaban, , “Hugo Grotius und die Ritualmord-prozesse in Lublin (1636)” in Festschrift zu Simon Dubnow's siebzigsten Geburtstag (Berlin, 1930) p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 2} An Arabic translation of this fifth chapter intended for missionary use amongst oriental Jewish communities was later published (Halle, 1733).

^{page 127 note 3} See Husik, , “The Law of Nature, Hugo Grotius and the Bible” in Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. II (Cincinnati, 1925) p. 381Google Scholar; Löwenstamm, , “Hugo Grotius' Stellung zum Judentum” in Festschrift zum 75-jährigen Bestehen des Jüdisch-Theologischen Seminars, Vol. II (Breslau, 1929) p. 295Google Scholar; Meijer, , “Hugo Grotius' knowledge of Hebrew” in Historia Judaica, vol. XIV (1952) p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 4} For example, Meijer, (op. cit., in previous footnote, p. 142)Google Scholar criticises Grotius for calling the last chapter of the Talmudic Tractate Sanhédrin “Perek Chelek”, and uses this as evidence of Grotius's lack of access to the original Hebrew texts. But this may be queried. The fact is that in the Mishna (e.g. ed. Albeck, Jerusalem, 1953) this is the penultimate chapter of the Tractate: similarly in the PalestinianTalmud (e.g. ed. El-Hamekoroth, Jerusalem, 5711 (1950/1), reprinting photographically the Venice/Cracow editions). But in the Babylonian Talmud it is the last chapter of the Tractate (e.g. the standard Vilna ed.). This renders imperative a much closer examination of the problem. Such examination would have to be based not upon one chapter of one of Grotius's works, but on a careful study of at least the three major works here mentioned. The reference is to De ventate, V, XIVGoogle Scholar, Note 9 (p. 341 in ed. of Amsterdam, 1675). We may quote some other instances which indicate either some knowledge of the language, or remarkable confidence in the quality of second-hand information. In his commentary on the Song of Songs he correctly states that the beauty of this work is lost in translation. Another interesting example of an effective use, by Grotius, of the Hebrew text of the Bible can be given. Welwod, in his Abridgment of all Sea-Laws (London, 1613), p. 63Google Scholar cites Genesis, 10: 5: These are the Isles of the Nations divided in their lands. Grotius in his Defensio capitis quinti Maris Liberi takes this up, saying that the Hebrew word in that passage should more properly be translated ‘regions’ or ‘provinces’ than ‘islands’. Wright, , “Some less known works of Hugo Grotius” in Bibliotheca Visseriana, vol. 7 (1928) at p. 161.Google Scholar This seems to me a correct observation. The Hebrew word— —usually means ‘island’, but it can mean ‘shore’, and is also sometimes translated ‘habitable’ or ‘inhabited land’, as in Isaiah, 43: 19. Both these meanings would be apt in the context. Yet it is surprising that this comment is not repeated in the Old Testament Commentary. Incidentally, on folio 240 recto of the Leyden MS of this work, the Hebrew word is incorrectly given as which does not make sense in the context. (The Hebrew word is written in a clear cursive script.) Whether this error is directly attributable to Grotius, or to the scribe, I am not competent to say. A collotype reproduction of this MS, said to be in the handwriting of Grotius, is in the Library of the Peace Palace, see Catalogue, Supplement 1937–1952, II p. 148.

^{page 128 note 1} The work was written, for political reasons, in 1618 and first published in 1635.

^{page 128 note 2} The other editions are: Strasbourg, 1665, Leipzig-Frankfurt, 1695, Wittenberg, 1712 and London, 1726 (in Vol. 1 of an edition of his complete works). There is some speculation on the motives which prompted this work, and it has been suggested that jealousy of Grotius was the main factor. See Buddeus, , Historia Juris Naturalis (Leyden, 1692)Google Scholar para. XXV. Cf. also Barbeyrac in para. XXIX of his Preface to the translation of Pufendorf's De jure naturae et gentium.

^{page 129 note 1} I am indebted to my friend and colleague, Prof. Leo Kohn, Professor of International Relations in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for drawing my attention to this.

^{page 129 note 2} Rachel, , De jure naturae et gentium dissertationes (Kiel, 1676)Google Scholar, second dissertation, par. XVIII. Reissued in the Carnegie series, with introduction by von Bar (two vols. Washington, 1916).

^{page 129 note 3} Herzog, Rabbi Isaac, “John Seiden and Jewish Law” in Journal of Comparative Legislation, third series, Vol. 13 (1931) p. 236. This criticism does not, however, cover Selden as an international lawyer.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 1} E.g., Klee, Hans, Hugo Grotius und Johannes Selden, von den geistigen Ursprüngen des Kampfes um die Meeresfreiheit, (Bern, 1946).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 2} A prolific writer on many topics, his principal works having a bearing on the philosophy of international law are his Elementorum jurisprudentiae universalis libri duo (1666)Google Scholar, reissued in the Carnegie series, with introduction by Wehberg (two vols. Oxford, 1931); the De jure naturae et gentium (1672)Google Scholar, reissued in the Carnegie series, with introduction by Simons (Oxford, 1934); and the De officio hominis et civisjuxta legem naturalem (1672)Google Scholar, reissued in the Carnegie series, with introduction by Schücking (two vols. New York 1927).

^{page 131 note 1} Meylan, , Jean Barbeyrac (Lausanne, 1936) p. 46.Google Scholar A clue to the enigma of Barbeyrac's attitude may be found in his comment on De officio hominis, Bk. I, Ch. I para. XXVII, that the Jews were the prime cause for the death of Jesus, as David was for the death of Uriah and Jezabel for that of Naboth. The following illustration of Barbeyrac's obtuseness may be given. Pufendorf, , De jure naturae, II, III, 3Google Scholar, points out that certain tyrants in ancient times used to keep wild beasts as executioners. Commenting on this Barbeyrac wrote: “Cela n'est fondé que sur les visions de quelque Rabbin”, and he cites Selden, , De jure naturali, I, 5Google Scholar, who relies on the well known Don Isaac Abarbanel, in his commentary on Genesis, 9: ff. Abarbanel himself (1437–1508) was a Spanish Jew of considerable culture and political influence, who at one time had held important positions under King Alfonso V of Portugal and later, before the Expulsion from Spain, under Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, and his biblical commentaries reflect his wide humanistic learning (his son was the philosopher Leone Ebreo) as well as his experience. The use of animals as executioners is certainly not unknown. The famous Moghul Emperor Akbar, for example, used an elephant for this purpose, as every visitor to the ruins of his palace at Fatehpur-Sikri is shown!

^{page 132 note 1} Cf. on this point in general, Verzijl, , “Western European Influence on the Foundation of International Law” in International Relations, vol. 1 (1955) 137 at p. 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 132 note 2} For attempts to analyse Spinoza's place in the history of international law, see: Menzel, in Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, vol. 2 (1908) p. 17Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, in British Year Book of International Law, vol. 8 (1927) p. 89Google Scholar; Verdross, in Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, vol. 7 (1928) p. 100Google Scholar; Lange, in Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium, vol. 7 (1936) p. 83.Google Scholar On the relations between Spinoza and Grotius, see SirPollock, Frederick in Chronicon Spinozianum, vol. 1 (1921) p. 47Google Scholar; Coert, , Spinoza en Grotius met betrekking tot het Volkenrecht, MededeeUngen van wege het Spinozahuis, III (Leyden, 1936).Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 3} Cf. Ago, Scienza Giuridica e Diritto Intemazionale (Milano, 1950) p. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 4} E.g. Ethica, part IV, proposition XXXVII, scholium II. This has been pointed out by the Roumanian Professor Djuvara in his lectures “Le fondement de l'ordre juridique positif en droit international” in Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, vol. 64 (1938) 485 at p. 547.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} Ben Gurion in the newspaper Davar (Tel-Aviv) of 4 01 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} An early instance of such research is König, , “Zum Völker- und Kriegsrecht im Altertum” in Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, vol. 11 (1920) p. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 3} Cf. Mendelssohn, in Acta Societatis Philologae Lipsiensis, vol. 5 (1875) p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 4} E.g. Ganshoff, , Le Moyen Age in Histoire des Relations Internationales, edited by Renouvin, (vol. 1, Paris, 1953)Google Scholar or, from another point of view, Potiemkine (editor), Histoire de la Diplomatie, vol. 1 (Paris 1946Google Scholar, original, in Russian, Moscow, 1945).

^{page 136 note 1} Quoted in Guggenheim, , “Jus gentium, jus naturale, jus civile et la communauté internationale issue de la Divisio Regnorum intervenue au cours des 12e et 13e siècles”, in Comunicazioni e Studi, vol. 7 (1955) at p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} On the autonomy of Jewish domestic life symbolized, inter alia, by the perpetuation of the jurisdiction of the Jewish Courts and the maintenance of some sort of legislative autonomy, cf. Baron, , The Jewish Community (Philadelphia, 1942)Google Scholar; and for regional studies of particular interest to the subject under discussion here cf. Neumann, . The Jews in Spain, their social, political and cultural life during the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1942)Google Scholar; Colorni, , Legge ebraica e leggi locali (Milano, 1945)Google Scholar; same, Gli Ebrei nel sistema del diritto comune fino alla prima Emancipazione (Milano, 1956).Google Scholar And see Meijers, , “L'histoire des principes fondamentaux du droit international privé à partir du Moyen Age” in Académie du Droit International, Recueil des Cours, vol. 49 (1934) 543 at p. 553Google Scholar; and Arminjon, , “Les systèmes juridiques complexes et les conflits de lois et de juridictions auxquelles ils donnent lieu”, 74Google Scholaribid., (1949) 73 at pp. 93, 132, 137, for some suggestive remarks on the possible influence of this historic fact on the development of the theory of private international law.

^{page 136 note 3} De re militari, IX, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 4} De Indis, II, 9.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} De Legibus, ac Deo Legislatore, I, VI, 24Google Scholar; Carnegie translation, vol. II p. 89. There is a rule of Jewish law that ‘the law of the Government is law’, Baba Bathra, 54 b (and elsewhere), Soncino translation, (London, 1935) p. 222, a precept sometimes traced to Jeremiah, 29:7. In the medieval period the doctrine was developed that this rule applied only as regards the law of the State which was of general application, and not to discriminatory legislation— a principle applied in the case of Landman v. Mount Zion Commutee cited below.

^{page 137 note 2} This view is based, inter alia, on a recent general work in Hebrew, Ben-Zevie, , The Jewish Community of Palestine during Ottoman Rule (Jerusalem, 1956).Google Scholar And cf. Hyamson, , The British Consulate in Jerusalem in relation to the Jews of Palestine (London, 1939, 1941).Google Scholar For an interesting historical parallel, when the consuls of Venice exercised some powers of protection over Jews in the Ottoman Empire, see Sereni, , The Italian Conception of International Law (New York, 1943) p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 1} Cf. Ahad Ha'am's essay on the Third Zionist Congress, in Al Paraphat Derakhim, vol. III (Berlin, 1921) p. 110–1Google Scholar, discussing the Hague Conference of 1899. The essay was originally published in Hashiloah, vol. 6 No. 4 (Tishri, 5660-09 1900).Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} Some aspects of the Israel part of the story are conveniently summarized in the report on Israel and the United Nations already cited. For the non-Israel aspects, see in particular Kubowitzki (editor), Unity in Dispersion, a History of the World Jewish Congress (New York 1948), and N. Robinson The United Nations and the World Jewish Congress (New York, 1956). These are works of synthesis: the numbers of reports and monographs, by the principal Jewish organizations and by individual scholars, on particular topics is legion.

^{page 139 note 1} De jure belli ac pans, I, III, IVGoogle Scholar, note to passage commencing ‘Illud Augustini’. Bellum potestatum is a possible, though inaccurate, translation of the Hebrew phrase commonly rendered ‘optional war’.

^{page 140 note 1} But cf. the contradictory interpretations of Rashi and Nahmanides on this verse. The ‘call to peace’ is an early instance of a legal duty of making a ‘declaration of war’.

^{page 140 note 2} On the destruction of trees in the wars between Christian and Moor in Spain, note the interesting views of the Moorish philosopher Ibn Rushd in his comment on Plato's Republic. Rosenthal, , Averroes' Commentary on Plato's ‘Republic’, (Cambridge, 1956) pp. 175, 269.Google Scholar See also Gentili, , De jure belli, II, 23Google Scholar; Grotius, De jure belli ac pacts, III, XII, 2Google Scholar; Seiden, , De jure naturali, VI, 15Google Scholar (incorrectly referring to the Talmud, , Baba Kama, 71–2Google Scholar for 91–2, and see Soncino translation (London, 1935) p. 529 for specific references to the Jewish legislation: and Molina, op. cit., disp. 121; Vattel, , Droit des gens (1758), IIIGoogle Scholar, para. 166; Vitoria, , De bello, 40 for repetition of the rule without specific reference to the biblical texts.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} Cf. in the Bible, Numbers 27:21–2: and in the Talmud, , Berakhot 3b, Soncino translation (London, 1948) p. 10Google Scholar; Sanhedrin 16a, Soncino translation (London, 1935) p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} And see Grotius, , De jure praedae, Ch. IV, Engl. translation (1950) p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 3} Antiquities, IIIGoogle Scholar, 2 para. 8. Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis, III, 4, para. 17Google Scholar comments that Josephus here diverges from the Scriptural version as found in Ex. 17:8. It would be interesting to know whether—and to what extent—the English differentiation between droits of the Crown and droits of Admiralty, and the corresponding distinction found in other systems of law, may have been influenced by this ancient biblical legislation. The standard English book on the subject is silent on this aspect. See Rothery's Prize Droits, revised ed. by Roscoe, , (London, 1915).Google Scholar But see Grotius, , De jure praedae, English ed. p. 55Google Scholar; Seiden, , De jure naturaliGoogle Scholar, Bk. VI Ch. 16; Ayala, , Op. cit. I, V, 7Google Scholar; Belli, , De re militariGoogle Scholar, Carnegie, ed. p. 45Google Scholar; etc., for specific references to the Ziklag ruling.

^{page 141 note 4} Sanhedrin, 21a, Soncino translation, (London, 1935) p. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 5} Cf. Ayala, , De jure et officiis belliciGoogle Scholar, bk. I Ch. IX; Belli, , De re militari p. 4Google Scholar; Pufendorf, , De jure naturae, II, V, 12.Google Scholar Elsewhere Josephus gives some interesting descriptions of Jewish embassies to the Roman Senate.

^{page 142 note 1} Gentili, , De jure belli, II, 5Google Scholar; Grotius, , IIGoogle Scholar, 13 para. 4; Pufendorf, , De jure naturae, IV, II, 7Google Scholar; Seiden, , De jure naturali, VI, 16.Google Scholar For an interesting justification of the stratagem of the Gibeonites see Maimonides Code XIV, VGoogle Scholar, 6 para. 5. For a comprehensive discussion, based almost exclusively on Jewish sourcematerial, of the question, whether it is right to make a treaty with men of a different religion, cf. Gentili, , op. cit., III, 19.Google Scholar The seven commandments of the Noahides have sometimes been taken as constituting the core of international law, e.g. by Selden (see above).

^{page 142 note 2} It is thus no accident that in Maimonides the recapitulation of this branch of the law is immediately followed by the Messianic vision with which the book ends.

^{page 143 note 1} Gulak, , Yesodei ha Mishpat ha Ivri, IV (Berlin, 5683–1923) p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} Soncino translation (London, 1936) p. 224. The question is here being discussed in relation to Deuteronomy, 20:8 and the exemptions it gives to military service — limited to exemptions from military service in optional, or voluntary (as here translated), war.

^{page 145 note 1} Dayan, (Religiousjudge) Waldenberg, Sefer Hilchot Medina (Jerusalem, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} Cf. the case on posttiminium, in the Jerusalem Rabbinic Court, Landman v. Mt. Zion Committee, International Law Reports, 1954, p. 471.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} Cf. Talmud, Babylonian, Gittin, Soncino translation (London, 1936) p. 27.Google Scholar Cited in Selden, , Mare clausum, I, 6Google Scholar and Bynkershoek, , De dominio maris (Opera minora, Leyden, 1744) p. 395.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 4} Talmud, Babylonian, Aboda Zara 2 la, Soncino translation (London, 1935) p. 109Google Scholar, Maimonides, Code, Book of Seeds, Laws of Heave-Offerings I para. 1 (English translation not yet published).

^{page 146 note 1} Thus, Decretimi Gratianum, part II, XIII, quaes. II, Ch. II, III; Avala, op. cit., I. II, 11; Gentili, Dejare belli, I, VII; Grotius, Dejare belli ac pacis, IIGoogle Scholar: II, 13, 2; Molina, , De belloGoogle Scholar, disp. 104 No. 7; Suárez, , De triplice virtuteGoogle Scholar, disp. XVIII (De mediis. quibus ad convertendos. vel coercendos infideles non apostatas uti licet), IV, 3; Textor, Synopsis Juris Gentium, XVII, 33Google Scholar; etc.

^{page 146 note 2} Mishna, , SanhedrinGoogle Scholar, 3:1 and Gemara ad loc; Maimonides, Code, Book of Judges, Laws of the Sanhedrin, Chapter 7 passim. This form of arbitration is even today common, especially for non-justiciable disputes. I am indebted to Dr. Jenks for drawing my attention to this theory.

^{page 146 note 3} Kaplan, in Encyclopaedia Hebraica, vol. 8 (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1956)Google Scholar col. 100 (sub. verb. Borerut [Arbitration]). It is given as an explanation for the different rule propounded by Rabbi Meir in the previously cited Mishna, that he was referring to the situation created by the Codex Theodosianus, II, II, 10, which permitted Jewish Courts to act only as arbitral tribunals.

^{page 146 note 4} Mishna, , Baba Bathra, 4:1–2Google Scholar and thereon, Gemara (Soncino translation, London, 1935. pp. 247 ff)Google Scholar; Maimonides, Code, Book of AcquisitionGoogle Scholar, Sales, Ch. XXIV paras. 15, 16. And see F.A.L., “Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum usque ad infernos” in Law Quarterly Review, vol. 47 (1931) p. 14Google Scholar and McNair, , The Law of the Air, 2nd ed. (London, 1953) p. 295.Google Scholar In Jewish law this doctrine was developed in connexion with the technicalities of documents of conveyance.

^{page 147 note 1} Ward, , Enquiry into the Foundations and History of the Law of Motions in Europe from the Greeks and Romans to the Age of Grotius (London, 1795), vol. 2, p. 127.Google Scholar Nevertheless this sentiment may not be entirely accurate in so far as concerns the early medieval period.

^{page 147 note 2} Cf. Bentwich, , The Religious Foundations of Internationalism (London, 1935).Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 3} Mishna, , AbothGoogle Scholar, 1:12. Attributed to Hillel, according to some traditions a teacher of Jesus.

^{page 148 note 1} Cf. Ruyssen, , Les sources doctrinales de l'internationalisme, Vol. I (Paris, 1954) p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 2} In one of its statements the International Court of Justice recently remarked that it was not for it ‘to pronounce on the political or moral duties’ which its legal considerations may involve. South-West Africa case, I.C.J. Reports 1950, at p. 140.Google Scholar This is one of the most outspoken authoritative utterances based upon a sharp cleavage between public law and public morality and illustrative of the gulf between the Jewish view of the subject and some expressions of the modern international law. But is good law really so far removed from morality?

^{page 148 note 3} This is based upon the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha Shana 17a, Soncino translation (London, 1938) p. 64 ff, but it is considerably broader as the Gemara does not mention the detail of the State as does Maimonides. On the other hand the Palestinian Talmud, Rosh ha Shana 57a, is specific in mentioning States and peoples.

^{page 149 note 1} This idea is covered further in one of the Commentaries on the Code (Lehem Mishne of R. Abraham de Boton (16th century) ) in which it is explained that the process of judging the world proceeds in stages from the individual, through the States singly and collectively, to the whole world, thus emphasising the basic legal teaching that the object of all law, including international law, is Man.