Lien, Arnold J.

English

Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship

Washington University Law Review Volume 26 Issue 2 1941 Review of “Conquest and Modern International Law—The Legal Limitations on the Acquisition of Territory by Conquest,” By Matthew M. McMahon Arnold J. Lien Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arnold J. Lien, Review of “Conquest and Modern International Law—The Legal Limitations on the Acquisition of Territory by Conquest,” By Matthew M. McMahon, 26 WASH. U. L. Q. 293 (1941). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol26/iss2/4 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu. BOOK REVIEWStion has been voiced by the Head of the Technical Staff to the policy oftrading one doubtful issue for another in arriving at a compromise, butwhere cases involve only one important issue, such issue is not to be com-promised, if to do so would leave open the same or a related question inconnection with other taxes, or with taxes for other years; it is not to becompromised in the undocketed stage, and even in the docketed stage thestaff offices are to avoid taking the initiative. A case is apparently not tobe compromised, if the Government is thought to have an even chanceor better, and may be compromised only "if the Government's chance is toostrong to surrender, but presents an exceedingly doubtful outlook, and thenonly if an advantageous offer is made."Apparentlys the Bureau's policy is against 10% or 20% settlements onthe theory that, if that little doubt remains, then the taxpayer's paymentought to be 100% or nothing. It is suggested by the Monograph that a10% or 20% settlement represents the nuisance value of a case.As might be expected, it seems to be true that the procedure before theBureau lends itself to dilatory tactics on the part of taxpayers. 9 Suggestionhas been made that a bond be required to be posted by a taxpayer beforetaking an appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals. In view of the require-ments of the bonding companies in such cases, this is a substantial equiva-lent to the requirement that the tax be paid. The Monograph recognizesthe problem, but deems it without the scope of the investigation.10 Closelycoupled with the question of delay is the question of extensions of time fortaxpayers in meritorious cases. The Monograph points out"' that appli-cations for extension of time are handled entirely apart from the originalsettling of the amount of the liability, and the suggestion is made thatsettlement would be encouraged, if, in meritorious cases, the taxpayerscould simultaneously arrange for an extension of time for payment ofeighteen months or less. Practitioners will no doubt recall cases which in-dicate that the suggestion is well taken.A portion of the Monograph 12 deals with the Board of Tax Appeals.Those interested will be well repaid by reading this portion of the Mono-graph because of its detailed factual account of the operations of the Board.RALPH R. NEUHOFF.tCONQUEST AND MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW-THE LEG.AL LIIIITATIONSON THE ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY BY CONQUEST. By Matthew M. McMahon.Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1940. Pp. vi, 233.This volume is an extremely well-written doctoral dissertation, amplydocumented and scholarly throughout. The writer's main thesis is that inthe contemporary age there are very significant trends towards the adoption8. P. 52.9. P. 54.10. Cf. Neuhoff, Our Federal Tax Predicament and What Can Be DoneAbout It (1938) 12 Temple L. Q. 340, 356.11. P. 57.12. Part IV, p. 158 et seq.t Lecturer in Law, Washington University.19411Washington University Open Scholarship294 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [Vol. 26of legal restrictions on the right of states to acquire territory by conquest,a right universally sanctioned by practice and in modern times pretty widelyrecognized in theory although in the middle ages strongly protested by thegreat international publicists.The most illustrious spokesmen of the pre-modern traditional doctrinethat no legal right of conquest exists and that conquest does not in itselfconstitute a basis for title to territory were St. Augustine, Vitoria, andSuarez. With Hugo Grotius in the early seventeenth century and still moreemphatically with Vattel appeared the modern doctrine of the right of con-quest and the legality of expansion by force. Dissenters from this generallyaccepted modern doctrine have continued in prominence, notably amongLatin-American and continental European writers. Quite apart from thevarying and sometimes conflicting theories of publicists, the general practiceof acquiring territory by conquest has not lacked judicial and arbitralsanctions.In recent years a significant number of agreements have been reachedby various groups of states for the purpose of imposing restrictions on thoright of expansion by conquest. The Monroe Doctrine is an early example,a unilateral political pronouncement based on the international principle ofself-defense but affecting an entire hemisphere. Article X of the covenantof the League of Nations is another, followed by the Nine-Power Treaty of1922 concerning China, the Pact of Paris in 1929 for the outlawry of war,and the Inter-American Conciliation Convention and the Inter-AmericanArbitration Treaty in the same year. Still more definite commitments toprohibit conquest by force were made in the Argentine Anti-War Pact andthe Convention on Rights and Duties of States in 1933 and in the Principlesof Inter-American Solidarity and Cooperation in 1936. To supplement theseand possibly to implement them with a sanction, there has come into con-siderable prominence in the current decade the doctrine of non-recognitionof the legality of any acquisition made by conquest. As a restraining in-fluence, too, is the traditional state's duty of non-intervention, although itsefficacy has been much clouded by conflicting conceptions of its observancein practice.How soon the old law and the old practice will yield to the new trenddepends upon the very disturbing and uncertain events of the immediatefuture. The author has very usefully brought together the facts relatingto the legal aspects of one of the world's great problems.ARNOLD J. LiEN.tTHE BoTTLENEcKs OF BusINEss. By Thurman W. Arnold. New York:Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940. Pp. xi, 335. $2.50.This, the third of. Mr. Arnold's expositions in book form, finds him ina new r8le and a new mood. He writes now as Assistant Attorney Generalof the United States in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Departmentof Justice, not as a free-lance critic of our economic, political and legalsystems talking with the easy freedom that belongs to those whose onlyt Professor of Political Science, Washington University.https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol26/iss2/4

Review of “Conquest and Modern International Law—The Legal Limitations on the Acquisition of Territory by Conquest,” By Matthew M. McMahon

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4002&amp;context=law_lawreview

Review of “Conquest and Modern International Law—The Legal Limitations on the Acquisition of Territory by Conquest,” By Matthew M. McMahon

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship