The student or practitioner whose interest is primarily in the interpretation and application of the law of nations is often prone to dismiss fundamental concepts as a matter of mere theoretical importance. This is a serious mistake. No one is capable of understanding the interpretations and applications of the law of nations which have been made in judicial decisions, national and international, in arbitrations, and in international incidents, unless he has some knowledge of the fundamental concepts of the science and of the conditions under which those concepts have developed. Concepts, in truth, are as much a part of the fabric of international jurisprudence as the intricate and confused records of international conduct. If they are no longer its warp and woof, they provide at least the necessary patterns.

The recent governmental policy of withholding recognition from foreign governments long and firmly established, because they are disapproved, has caused confusion in the conduct of international affairs and in the administration of justice in the courts. In late years this has been particularly exemplified in the relations of the United States with the Soviet Government of Russia, but it has had illustrations on earlier occasions in connection with Mexico and other countries, when a desire to express disapproval of certain foreign governments or their policies has induced, through the purported privilege of withholding recognition, the concomitant policy of intervention, reprisals, and non-intercourse.

There was concluded in Washington on December 15,1931, an arbitration between the Central Powers and the United States of claims arising out of the seizure by the United States of enemy-owned ships, patents and radio stations during the World War. The arbitration was unique in that, instead of being brought about as the result of a treaty or a convention between the Powers in question, it was instituted as the result of an Act of Congress by which a special tribunal was established for the hearing of such claims against the United States. Thus we are confronted with the unusual spectacle of a Power against whom the claims were asserted, recognizing such claims by a legislative act on its own part, without any bilateral agreement, and establishing of its own accord a special tribunal for the determination of the claims. It was consequently an arbitration international in its scope, but conducted before a domestic tribunal.

Every student of international law knows that the federal courts in the United States apply rules derived from international law. At least five theories have been offered to explain the basis of the authority of such rules before the courts. This study is limited strictly to an analysis, comparison, and appraisal of these various theories in the light of federal judicial opinion.

Foreign missionary activities, religious, educational, and philanthropic, play an important part in the international relations of China. Christian missionary rights have been conferred by many of the treaties concluded with China since 1842. The protection of missionary life and property has been one of the major activities of foreign legations in China since 1860. Christian mission workers have been accorded the right to acquire property in the interior of China, whereas commercial interests have been restricted by treaty to ports, foreign settlements and concessions. Foreign Christian missionaries constitute the largest class of aliens in China, and their property holdings bulk large in the foreign investment. These facts make pertinent a study of the legal status of alien religious property in China.

International law, whether customary or conventional, has been assumed to rest ultimately on moral or non-physical sanctions. In speaking of the “sanctity” of international agreements more often than of the “sanctions” upon which their effectiveness may depend, we have placed ultimate faith in the non-coercive means of giving effect to international law and international obligations. The practice of states, however, shows a striking number of instances in which material self-help sanctions have been exercised in time of peace to give effect to international rights.