s, and the like. The British and American delegates,
believing that it only concerned an act on the part of belligerent
forces occupying enemy territory, therefore consented to the insertion
of Article 23(h), and our Court of Appeal--in the case of Porter _v._
Freundenberg (1915)--held that Article 23(h) is to be interpreted in
that sense.[1]

Be that as it may, the difficulty of interpretation and construction of
international treaties will exist so long as no International Statute
has been agreed upon which lays down detailed rules concerning
interpretation and construction, or so long as International Courts have
not developed such rules in practice. But the problem of International
Courts is itself a very difficult one; it will be the subject of my
third lecture which will deal with Administration of Justice and
Mediation within the League of Nations.

[1] By a letter of February 28, 1911, I drew the attention of the
Foreign Office to the interpretation of Article 23(h) which generally
prevailed on the Continent. This letter and the answer I received were
privately printed, and copies were distributed amongst those members and
associates of the Institute of International Law who attended the
meeting at Madrid. Since French, German, and Italian International Law
Journals published translations, but the original of the correspondence
was never published in this country, I think it advisable to append it
to this lecture.

APPENDIX

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FOREIGN OFFICE RESPECTING THE INTERPRETATION OF
ARTICLE 23(h) OF THE HAGUE REGULATIONS CONCERNING LAND WARFARE

LETTER FROM THE PRESENT WRITER TO THE FOREIGN OFFICE.

WHEWELL HOUSE, CAMBRIDGE,
_28th February, 1911_.

TO
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

SIR,--

I venture to bring the following matter before your consideration:--

In the course of my recent studies I have been dealing with the laws and
usages of war on land, and I have had to consider the interpretation of
Article 23(h) of the Regulations attached to the Convention of 1907
relating to the Laws and Customs of war on land. I find that the
interpretation prevailing among all continental and some English and
American authorities is contrary to the old English rule, and I would
respectfully ask to be informed of the view which His Majesty's
Government place upon the article i