No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Professor Jessup was unable to participate actively in the work of the Committee.
Mr. Rublee did not participate in the work of the Committee.
For the discussion of this Report and the action of the Society on the Resolutions proposed, see above, pp. 132–134.
For the discussion of this Report and the action of the Society on the Resolutions proposed, see above, pp. 132–134.
The origin, fuctions, and competence of this committee appear in the following excerpts from a statement made at the meeting of the Society on April 28, 1934, by Mr. Philip C. Jessup, as chairman of a preëxisting committee on the same subject:
The Council…asked that the question of the standing committee on State Department publications go over into the meeting of the full Society this morning.… The task is no longer to persuade the State Department. The task is to finance the State Department, which is fully persuaded that it should carry on the work.… The task of the committee and of the Society at present is to bring to the attention of Congress and of the Bureau of the Budget our interest in this subject and the necessity which all persons feel for continuing the excellent progress which the State Department began in 1928 in this matter of publications.…
I believe the Society should have a standing committee on this subject in order to present our interest to the proper committees of Congress or to the Bureau of the Budget as may from time to time be necessary, and to continue our coöperation with similar committees of other organizations, such as the American Historical Association and the like.
I move that the Society constitute a standing Committee on Publications of the Department of State; that the President of the Society be authorized to appoint the members of this committee in its origin, and that subsequently, as a standing committee, its membership be filled in accordance with the procedure adopted for all standing committees of the Society, and further, that the chairman of the committee, if it be constituted, be authorized to add individuals to the committee for specific purposes, as in his discretion may seem desirable and necessary.
Professor BROWN. I am not quite clear of the difference between the proposed motion and that adopted by the Council.
The PRESIDENT. The Chairman was not present at that time; I was obliged to leave before it was reached.
Professor JESSUP. I think that the motion is substantially the same as that which was before the Executive Council; that is, it calls for the appointment of a standing committee. The difference, perhaps, is in the constitution of the committee, and the point of giving the chairman of that committee power to add to its membership if occasion arises; for example, if it becomes necessary to appear before committees of Congress, to bring in additional members who would be particularly valuable for that purpose.
The PRESIDENT. You have heard the motion; if there is no further discussion, all in favor will say aye; contrary minded, no. It is carried. (Proceedings, 1934, pp. 186–188.)
2 This paragraph of the report was prepared by Mr. Charles Warren.
3 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1942, p. 85 Google Scholar.
4 Same, 1943, p. 156.
5 Same, 1944, p. 164.
6 Same, 1942, p. 85.
7 Same, 1943, p. 156.
8 Same, 1944, p. 164.
9 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1944, p. 164 Google Scholar.
10 Commenting on this, a member of the Society wrote the Chairman as follows:
“If it will take thirty persons to complete the Miller Treaty edition in ten years and a score or more of persons to bring out the Foreign Relations volumes, the German Foreign office volumes, the treaty annotations, as well as the Bulletin and pamphlet series, our proposals will probably run afoul of economy-minded Congressmen, who may question how widely the volumes will be purchased and studied. The answer, it seems to me, is that the volumes will be purchased, studied, and used by scholars, teachers, lecturers, legal practitioners, and men in public life through whom accurate information will reach tens of thousands of people who do not themselves read the documents.”
11 See 1 Miller, Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America, 48.
Three unofficial catalogues of limited groups of litigated cases interpreting treaties have been in existence for some time. All are, however, restricted in scope and none of them is adequate. Volume I of the Digest of the United States Supreme Court Reports (published in 1943, by The Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company) contains two lists of treaty provisions which have been construed by the Supreme Court. The first list (p. 139 et seq.) is arranged alphabetically by the foreign state involved. Under the particular countries, the treaties are set forth chronologically. The second list is arranged chronologically by the date of the treaty (p. 578). These lists are not annotations, but they do, in many cases, indicate which article of a particular treaty the Supreme Court construed in the cited case. Only Supreme Court cases are included. (There is also included a similar table listing constructions of Indian treaties by the Supreme Court (p. 587).)
Mason’s United States Code Annotated (published in 1926, with supplements bringing it uptodate) contains eight pages of treaty annotations (Appendix 4 of Volume III, p. 3983 et seq.). They are arranged according to the foreign state concerned, and, under the name of that state, are subdivided according to the dates of treaties. In some cases the entries in this publication are typically legal annotations stating court holdings in the form of propositions of law. In other cases, however, only volume and page citations to cases are given, without even setting forth the associated name of the case. Mason’s Code, however, is not limited to Supreme Court cases but contains annotations of cases decided by the other federal courts and also decisions of state courts. The treaty annotations in the supplements are more satisfactory than in the basic volume.
See also 12 Federal Code Annotated 578—“Treaties with Specific Countries.”
12 1 Miller as cited 26. “The present edition,” said Miller, “is primarily an edition of the texts of documents. It is accordingly proper to indicate the sources of those texts and to outline some of the questions that arise in connection therewith; and as the documents here included are chiefly treaties, some account of the procedure of treaty making is a desirable preliminary to any statement regarding sources of treaty texts.”
13 “Previous treaty collections have to a greater or less extent printed the texts of awards by arbitral tribunals, or documents of a similar nature, whether strictly awards or not, such as decision of commissions. Now, so far as such awards or decisions relate to monetary claims, they seem clearly and under any theory outside the scope of this work. Accordingly, none of them will be included here, not even the famous Geneva award, following the Treaty of Washington, which is printed in Malloy.” ( Miller, Hunter, “Proposed New Edition of the Treaties of the United States” 24 A.J.I.L., 241, 242 (1930)Google Scholar.) “Other notes dealing with the diplomatic and juridical history of the documents will appear subsequently and in separate volumes”(2 Miller v.).
14 One member of the Committee observes in this connection that “as interpretations are being made in current diplomatic correspondence all the time, 1 doubt if it is feasible to bring the annotations up to a current date. The danger, as with the Miller Treaties, is to go into so much detail that the annotated treaties will never be finished or even brought up to recent times. I think the annotations could well be little more than mere references to decisions, opinions etc. for any lawyer worth his salt would not rely on the annotations and would want to read the original decisions, etc. himself.”
15 But see suggestions on the publication of treaties made above under the heading “Miller Treaty Edition.”
16 Malloy iii; Sen. Doc. 1063, 62d Cong., 3d Seas., p. 3; 3 Malloy iv; 4 Malloy A-4.
17 1 Malloy iii.
18 4 Malloy A-4.
19 3 Malloy ii; 4 Malloy A-2.
20 1 Malloy iii.
21 Above, p. 132.
22 One member of the Committee feels that Congress should make provision for producing such a publication without using the Department of State, which, he observes, “is already overloaded and incapable of properly dealing with its burden.”
23 For action on this resolution, see above, p. 134.
24 The order in which the foregoing recommendations are stated is not intended to be suggestive of the importance attached to any one of them.
25 Proc., 1934, p. 187, 208.
26 See above, p. 177, footnote 1.
27 For action on these proposals see pp. 133–134, above.