_cuius est solum, huius est usque ad
coelum_, en y apportant au besoin quelques restrictions," "Annuaire," p.
821), would subject all aerial access to the discretion of the
territorial Power.

The discussion took place upon certain _bases_, and No. 3 of these was
ultimately adopted, though only by 21 against 10 votes, to the following
effect: "La circulation aerienne internationale est libre, sauf le droit
pour les etats sous-jacents de prendre certaines mesures a determiner,
en vue de leur securite et de celle des personnes et des biens de leur
territoire."

The Institut then proceeded to deal with _bases_ relating to a time of
war, but was unable to make much progress with them in the time
available. The debate upon the "Regime juridique des aerostats" was not
resumed at Christiania in 1911, nor is it likely to be at Oxford "in the
autumn of the present year," as Mr. Cohen has been led to suppose. Other
arrangements were found to be necessary, at a meeting which took place a
week ago between myself and the other members of our _bureau_.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, May 30 (1913).

ATTACK FROM THE AIR

THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Sir,--In his interesting and important address at the Royal United
Service Institution, Colonel Jackson inquired: "Can any student of
international law tell us definitely that such a thing as aerial attack
on London is outside the rules; and, further, that there exists an
authority by which the rules can be enforced?" As one of the students to
whom the Colonel appeals I should be glad to be allowed to reply to the
first of his questions.

The "Geneva Convention" mentioned in the address has, of course, no
bearing upon aerial dangers. The answer to the question is contained in
the, now generally ratified, Hague Convention No. iv. of 1907. Art. 25
of the regulations annexed to this Convention runs as follows:

"It is forbidden to attack or to bombard _by any means
whatever (par quelque moyen que ce soit)_ towns, villages,
habitations, or buildings which are not defended."

It clearly appears from the "Actes de la Conference," e.g. _T._ i.,
pp. 106, 109, that the words which I have italicised were inserted in
the article, deliberately and after considerable discussion, in order to
render illegal any attack from the air upon undefended localities; among
which I conceive that London would unquestionably be included.

I cannot