International Law and Political Science

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alpheus Henry Snow

It is a truism that the science of law proper – the science dealing with the United States or the law of Great Britain, one finds the whole science based on the fact of the existence of a political society known as the United States or Great Britain, which formulates, applies and enforces the law which governs these nations in their internal relations. When one enters upon the study of what is called international law, one finds himself expected to accept as a fundamental proposition that there is no political society which formulates, applies and enforces the law which he is told governs all nations in their external relations, and that this law is formulated, applied and enforced among or between the nations. This difference in fundamentals leads to corresponding differences in the derivative notions. Practitioners of law proper take little or no interest in what is called international law. From their point of view, that which is called international law is only a collection of the rules of a highly interesting game, success in which depends largely upon “face ” and personality; nor can it be denied that there is much to justify this opinion. Students of law reflect the attitude of mind of the practitioner, and the great majority of students end their legal education when they finish the courses in national domestic law, giving no consideration to the law which governs the actions and relations of the nations.

1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Finch

The founding fifty years ago of a society to promote the establishment of international relations on the basis of law and justice was a step marking the progress that had been made at the beginning of the century in the age-long efforts to find a means of substituting reason for force in the settlement of international controversies. At that time arbitration was generally regarded as the most suitable and acceptable substitute for war. Great Britain and the United States had both heavily contributed to that conviction first by submitting to arbitration under the Jay Treaty of 1794 the numerous misunderstandings that developed in carrying out the provisions of the Peace Treaty of 1783, and then three-quarters of a century later in submitting to arbitration by the Treaty of Washington of 1871 the dangerous Alabama Claims dispute following the American Civil War.


1924 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 774-777
Author(s):  
J. W. Garner

By an act of Congress passed at the last session the United States has followed the example of a number of European states since the war and provided for the reorganization of its foreign service. The act was passed after long discussion and it embodies recommendations made by various recent Secretaries of State, including Mr. Bryan, Mr. Lansing, Mr. Colby,and Mr. Hughes; by Mr Wilbur J. Carr, formerly Director of the Consular Service and now an Assistant Secretary of State; by the Hon. John W.Davis, former ambassador to Great Britain, and other persons interested in the reform of the foreign service. The author of the act was the Hon.John J. Rogers of Massachusetts, to whose deep interest and untiring zeal the passage of the law was mainly due.


Author(s):  
Gabriela A. Frei

Chapter 7 explores the question of the immunity of private property from capture at sea, examining the views of its opponents and supporters. The immunity of private property at sea posed a serious challenge to sea powers—it was feared that this step would result in a further curtailment of belligerent rights. The chapter analyses the positions of the United States, Great Britain, and Germany in the first and second Hague peace conferences. The naval thinkers Alfred T. Mahan and Julian S. Corbett saw the proposal as an existential danger to waging economic warfare. Their reflection on the impact of international law on maritime strategy illustrated the limitation of the adoption of such a far-reaching proposal. The question also demanded a theoretical reflection on warfare and the chapter compares how international lawyers and strategists understood warfare and international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document