It has been my privilege during the past few months to conduct on behalfof the Government of the United States negotiations having for their object the promotion of the great ideal of world peace. Popular and governmental interest in the realization of this ideal has never been greater than at the present time. Ever since the World War, which spelled death to so many millions of men, spread desolation over so much of the Continent of Europe and shocked and imperiled neutral as well as belligerent nations, the minds of statesmen and of their peoples have been more and more concerned with plans for preventing the recurrence of such a calamity.

The sixth year of the Permanent Court of International Justice has been busy and fruitful. The judges have been kept continuously at The Hague from the beginning of the twelfth(ordinary) session on June 15, 1927, to the end of the session on December 16, 1927. During the year the court has handed down four important orders, four judgments, and oneadvisory opinion. The following countries have been involved in cases or questions before the court during this period: Belgium, British Empire, China, Danzig, France, Germany Greece, Italy, Poland, Roumania, Turkey. The extent to which the court has been resortedto in six years is the best proof that it is filling a need in the international life ofour time. Whereas, in the course of its first six years, the Supreme Court of the Unite States handled but twelve cases, the Permanent Court of International Justice has now given eleven judgments and fourteen advisory opinions. Such a record seems to presage a useful rôle for the court in the future. It has now become so embedded in the world's treaty law that it would seem very difficult for the world ever again to be without it. In six years it has made significant contributions to our growing international jurisprudence, some of the most important of which have been made during the last twelve months.

The recently concluded arbitration between the United States and the Netherlands relative to the ownership of the Island of Palmas, which resulted in the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration that this bit of territory belongs to the latter country, involved points of interest to the international lawyer out of all proportion to the importance of the res.1 In this respect it would of course be no novelty in the annals of national jurisprudence. In addition to many interesting matters of arbitral procedure, the case involved most of the international substantive law of real property, if it may be so called.

After any close inquiry into the present authority of the rule of the threemile limitof territorial waters, the candid observer will probabjy come to the conclusion that therule, while not infrequently attacked in theory, is supreme in practice. Diplomatists seldom or never question it; professors occasionally do. In the actual conduct of affairs,it is seldom challenged, and never successfully so. It must be premised that in what follows there is left out of account altogether the question of bays and gulfs. This is a different and more difficult question which can best be treated separately.

The responsibility of the state in international law is a subject of constantly increasing interest, whether to the practicing lawyer, who finds himself called upon to prepare an international claim, or to the theoretician, interested, perhaps, in the current codification of international law.1 Of the many problems connected with state responsibility, one of the most interesting, and at the same time one of the most vital,is that of the proper denotation to be given to the phrase “ denial of justice.” Most debates hinge upon definitions; and a consistent statement of the rules of responsibility would seem impossible until denial of justice is given clearer definition.It is believed that practice now affords us enough consideration of the meaning of the term to permit of analysis and of more precise definition.

The United States finds its chief assurance of safety in its own strong arm and in its geographical position; for it has few treaties that offer solid barriers against conflict, and none that bind the other party not to wage war upon it should some conditions arise.

In seeking safeguards against war numerous obstacles have checked our progress. We have not as a people been certain as to what we ought to give up for the sake of peace. We have not been clear as to what should be accepted as feasible and desirable substitutes for war. We have lacked conviction as to the efficacy of some modes of adjustment, and have overlooked the potentialities of others; and we have been reluctant to agree to experiment. We have rigidly declined to agree to make war against a state that becomes a belligerent in violation of its covenant, without considering whether there may not be some other unobjectionable and yet effective means of penalizing such a wrongdoer.

The International Radiotelegraph Conference of Washington was opened on October 4, 1927, with an address by President Coolidge and was closed on November 25, 1927, with the signing of an International Radiotelegraph Convention and Annexed General Regulations by delegates representing 78 governments and a set of Annexed Supplementary Regulations by representatives of 75 governments. In his closing address, Secretary Hoover, president of the conference, referred to it as “ the largest international conference of history.”

The treaties negotiated between the Soviet Republics and the Western and Oriental nations are numerous and varied. The official records of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs make a distinction between political treaties, agreements on questions of law, conventions regarding disputed frontiers, economic agreements, liaison, transportation and public health agreements.