The Harvard Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal pot

The
Harvard
Research
in
International
Law:
Contemporary
Analysis
and
Appraisal
Edited
by
John
P.
Grant
J.
Craig
Barker
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal i 2007
Library
of
Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication
Data
The Harvard
research
in
international
law
:
contemporary

analysis
and
appraisal
/
Edited
by
John
P.
Grant
and
J.
Craig
Barker.
p.
cm.
ISBN
978-0-8377-3038-7
(cloth
:
alk.
paper)
1.
International
law
Codification
History.
2.
International
law
Research

History.
3.
Justice.
Administration
of-Interna-
tional
cooperation-History.
4.
Judicial
assistance-History.
5.
International
law
and
relations-History.
1.
Grant,
John
P.
II.
Barker,
J.
Craig,
1966-I
I.
Title:
Research
in
international
law.

KZ1293.H37
2007
341
dc22
2007024255
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal ii 2007
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
P
reface

v
C
ontributors

ix
Chapter
1.
The
Harvard
Research:
Genesis
to
Exodus
and
Beyond
John
P.
Grant

and
J.
Craig
Barker

I
Chapter
2.
Nationality
R
uth
D
onner

41
Chapter
3.
Responsibility
of
States
for
Injuries
to
Foreigners
James
Crawford
and
Tom
Grant

77
Chapter
4.
Territorial
Waters
John
P
.
G
rant

127
Chapter
5.
Diplomatic
Privileges
and Immunities
E
ileen D
enza

155
Chapter
6.
The
Legal
Position
and
Functions
of

Consuls
J. C
raig
B
arker

179
Chapter
7.
Competence
of
Courts
in
Regard
to
Foreign
States
H
azel
F
ox

203
Chapter
8.
Piracy
A
lfred
P.
R

ubin

229
Chapter
9.
Extradition
G
eoff
G
ilbert

247
Chapter
10.
Jurisdiction
with
Respect
to
Crime:
Universal
Jurisdiction
and
the
Harvard
Research
M ichael
P
.
Scharf

275
Chapter
11.
Law
of
Treaties
A
nthony
A
ust

307
Chapter
12.
Judicial
Assistance
Jerem
y
T
hom
as

337
Chapter
13.
Neutrality
Stephen
C
.
N

eff

381
Chapter
14.
Rights
and
Duties of
States
in
Case of
Aggression
Elina
Steinerte
and
Rebecca
M.M.
Wallace

405
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal iii 2007
Harvard
Research
on
International
Law
Appendix
1.
Draft
Convention

on
the
Law
of
Nationality

433
Appendix
2.
Draft
Convention
on
Responsibility
of
States
for
Damage
Done
in
Their
Territory
to
the
Person
or
Property
of
F
oreigners

437
Appendix
3.
Draft Convention
on
Territorial
Waters

441
Appendix
4.
Draft Convention
on
Diplomatic
Privileges
and
Im
m
unities

445
Appendix
5.
Draft Convention
on
the Legal
Position
and
Functions
of

Consuls

453
Appendix
6.
Draft
Convention
on
Competence
of
Courts
in
R
egard to
Foreign
States

463
Appendix
7.
Draft
Convention
on
Piracy

469
Appendix
8.
Draft
Convention

on
Extradition

475
Appendix
9.
Draft Convention
on
Jurisdiction
with
Respect
to
C
rim
e

487
Appendix
10.
Draft Convention
on
the
Law
of
Treaties

493
Appendix
11.
Draft

Convention
on
Judicial
Assistance

503
Appendix
12.
Draft
Convention
on
Rights
and
Duties
of
Neutral
States
in
Naval
and Aerial
War

513
Appendix
13.
Draft
Convention
on
Rights
and

Duties
of
States
in
Case
of
A
ggression

537
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal iv 2007
PREFACE
We
became
acutely
interested
in
the
Harvard
Research
in
Interna-
tional
Law
while
we
were
researching
all
aspects

of
international
law
for
the
second edition
of
the
Encyclopaedic
Dictionary
of
Interna-
tional
Law
in
the
early
2000s.
We
wrote,
in
fact
rewrote
from
the
first
edition,
an
entry
on the

Harvard
Research
and
that
set us
thinking
that, while
we
knew
of
its
existence
and
had
in
our
writings
and
teachings
referred
to
it,
we
were
embarrassingly
ignorant
of
how
such
an

endeavor
came
to
pass,
what
exactly
it
did
(and
how)
and
what
contribution
its
thirteen
projects
made
to
future
thinking
and
practice.
We set
about
an
initial
investigation
and
concluded
that

there was
a
gap
in
the
literature
of
international
law
in
that
no
one
had
attemp-
ted
a
systematic appraisal
of
the
Harvard
Research.
Determined
to
fill
that
void,
we
recruited
experts

in
the
various fields
covered
by
the
Harvard
Research
and
invited
them
to
contribute
an
appraisal
on
their
area
of
expertise.
The
questions
we
proposed
as
guidelines for
our
contributors
were
simple:

on
what
basis
did
the
thirteen Harvard
projects make
their
proposals for
codification
and
what,
if
anything,
has
been
the
continuing impact
of
these
proposals?
Beyond these
two
suggested
questions,
we
merely
indicated
a
page-limit, leaving

every-
thing
else
to
the
contributors-the
result
of
which
is
a
fairly
wide
range
of
approaches.
Along
with
diverse
approaches,
we
expected,
and
received,
a
variety
of
citation
styles,
which

we
have
left
essen-
tially unchanged.
Because
of
the
nature
of
this
collection
and the
linking
references
within
chapters,
we
decided
that
an
index
was
unnecessary.
We
had
no
pre-set
view
as

to
the
answers
to
these
questions-or
indeed
to
the
larger
question
of
the
overall
impact
of
the
Harvard
Research.
Insofar
as
we
thought
about
the
larger
question,
we
assumed
that

the
Research
had
probably
had
some,
but
probably
not
much,
effect
on
future
developments.
We
knew
it
was
cited
in
the
literature,
but often
merely
in
a
footnote
at
the
beginning

of
a
particu-
lar
section
of
a
work indicating
the
general
sources
on
which the
author
was
relying.
We
suspected that
it
was
one
of
these
sources
that
requires
to
be
cited
in

a
list
of
general
authorities,
but
that
it
might
only rarely,
and
in
the
most technical
areas,
be
used
as
an
authority
for
a
particular
proposition.
In
short,
we
thought that
it
might

be
often
cited
but probably
never
carefully
studied.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal v 2007
Harvard Research
on
International
Law
We
have
arranged
the
contributions
in
the
order
in
which
they
were
originally
published
by
the
American
Society

of
International
Law
in
a
Special
Supplement (for
the
three
draft conventions
in
the
first phase
of
the
Research)
and
Supplements
(for
the
ten
draft
conventions
in
the
other
three
phases)
to
its

prestigious
Journal.
The
first chapter,
written
by us,
attempts
to
place
the
Harvard
Research in
its
historical context
and
in
the
context
of
subsequent
thinking
and
practice
in
the
thirteen
areas
with
which
it

dealt.
As appendices
to
the
book
are
the
texts
of
the
thirteen
draft
conventions
produced
by
the
Harvard
Research,
though not
the
lengthy
and
useful
"Comments"
that accompanied
each draft
convention.
At
the
time

of
the
publication
of
this book,
W.S.
Hein
is
publishing
a
reprint
of
the
entire
Harvard
Research,
including
the
draft
conven-
tions
and
the
"Comments,"
though
not
the
appendices
attached
to

each
Harvard
draft
convention.
All
the
material
is
available
in
the
American
Journal
of
International
Law,
and
electronically
at
HeinOnline,
but
we
are
delighted
that Hein
agreed
with
us
that
a

reprint
was
important
and
timely.
We
are
grateful
to
the
American
Society
of
International Law,
the
copyright-holder,
for
giving
permis-
sion
for
the
reproduction
of
the
Harvard
Research draft
conventions
and
"Comments."

The Society
not
only
published
the
Harvard
Research
phases
when
they
were
completed,
but,
through
its
members,
clearly
played
a
major
role
in
the
work
of
the
Research
itself.
The
purpose

of
all
research
being to
establish
the
need
for further
research,
we
are
committed
to
investigating what happened
to the
Harvard
recognition
project,
which
was
never
published
and
perhaps
never
completed.
Somewhere-in
the
papers
of

Manley
0.
Hudson,
the
Harvard
law
library
or
the papers
of
Edwin
D.
Dickinson
or
Lawrence
Preuss,
the
reporters
appointed
to
the
project-there
must
be
evidence
of
the
project's
fate.
There

are
many
to
thank.
First,
of
course,
are
the
contributors,
who
eagerly
embraced
this
project
from
the
outset,
followed
the
suggested
guidelines
and wrote
analytical
and
perceptive
chapters.
We
thank
Sheila

Jarrett,
Senior
Editor
at
William
S.
Hein &
Co.,
Inc.,
for
her
constant
encouragement,
assistance
and
patience.
We
want
to
place
on
record our
sincere
appreciation
to
three
fine
student
research
assistants

at
Lewis
&
Clark
School
of
Law: the
redoubtable
and
indefatigable Courtney
Watts,
Grant's
research
assistant for
two
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal vi 2007
Preface
vii
years,
who
helped
immeasurably
with the
introductory
chapter;
Tilah
Larson,
who also
worked
on

the
introductory
chapter,
especially
the
section
on
the
International Law Commission;
and
Sarah
Koteen,
who
assisted
Grant
with
the
chapter
on
territorial waters
with
a
masterly
analysis
of
the
Franconia
case.
For
this

project,
three
of
the ablest
members
of
the
Lewis
& Clark Boley
Law Library
were
drafted
into
service,
associate
director
Tami
Gierloff
and
reference
librarians
Wendy
Hitchcock
and
Seneca
Gray.
John
P.
Grant
J.

Craig
Barker
February
2007
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal vii 2007
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal viii 2007
CONTRIBUTORS
Anthony
Aust
retired
in
2002
as
Deputy
Legal
Adviser,
Foreign
and
Commonwealth
Office,
London.
He
is
the
author
of
Modern
Treaty
Law
and

Practice,
Cambridge
University
Press, 2nd
ed.
2007,
Chinese
ed.
2005,
and a
Handbook
of
International
Law,
Cambridge
University
Press,
2005.
He
is
a
consultant
to
governments,
interna-
tional organisations
and
Kendall
Freeman,
the

London
solicitors,
on
international
law;
and
a
visiting
professor
of
law
at
the
London
School
of
Economics,
University
College
London,
and
other
places.
J.
Craig
Barker
is
Professor
of
Law

at
the
Sussex
Law
School,
University
of
Sussex
where
he
teaches
Public International
Law
and
International
Criminal
Law.
He
is
the
author
of
The
Protection
of
Diplomatic
Personnel
(2006) and
is
co-editor

of
the
Encyclopaedic
Dictionary
of
International
Law
(2nd
ed.,
2003)
and
International
Criminal
Law
Deskbook
(2006),
both
with
John
P.
Grant.
James
Crawford
is
Whewell
Professor
of
International
Law
and

Director
of
the
Lauterpacht
Research
Centre
for International
Law,
University
of
Cambridge.
As
a
member
of
the
United
Nations
Interna-
tional
Law Commission
(1992-2001),
he
was
responsible for
the
first
draft
of
the

Statute
for
an
International
Criminal
Court
and
subsequently
was the
ILC Special
Rapporteur
on
State
responsibility.
He has
appeared
in
more than
40
cases before
international courts
and
tribunals,
including
the
International Court
of
Justice
and
the

Interna-
tional
Tribunal for
the
Law
of
the
Sea.
He
is
a
Senior
Counsel
of
the
New
South
Wales
bar
and
a
member
of
Matrix
Chambers,
London.
Eileen Denza
was
formerly
assistant Lecturer

in
Law, Bristol
University
and
a
Legal
Advisor
to
the
Foreign
and
Commonwealth
Office,
and Counsel
to
the
EC
Committee
of
the
House
of
Lords.
She
is
Visiting Professor
of
Law
at
University

College
London
and
author
of
Diplomatic
Law
(2nd
ed.,
1998)
and
The
Intergovernmental
Pillar
of
the
European
Union
(2002).
She
is
currently
preparing
a
third
edi-
tion
of Diplomatic
Law.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal ix 2007

Harvard Research
on
International
Law
Ruth
Donner
is
former
Adjunct Professor,
and
Acting
Professor,
of
Public International Law,
Faculty
of
Law, University
of
Helsinki,
Finland.
Together
with
articles
and book
reviews
on
public
interna-
tional
law

topics,
her
publications
include:
The
Regulation
of
Na-
tionality
in
International
Law
(1
st
ed.
Helsinki
1983,
2nd
revised
ed.
Transnational
Publishers
N.Y.
1994),
International
Adjudication:
Using
the
International
Court

of
Justice
(Helsinki,
1988)
and
King
Magnus
Eriksson
"s
Law
of
the
Realm.
A
Medieval
Swedish
Code
(Helsinki,
2000,
translator
and
editor).
Lady
Fox
QC
(Hazel)
is
formerly
Director,
of

the
British
Institute
of
International
and
Comparative
Law
and General
Editor
of
the
Interna-
tional
and
Comparative Law
Quarterly.
She
is
a
member
of
the
Institut
de
droit
international,
a
Bencher
of

Lincoln's
Inn,
Hon
Fellow
of
Somerville College,
University
of
Oxford,
a
member
of
the
ILA
Committees
on
State
Immunity,
Diplomatic
Protection, Reparation
for
Victims
of
War
Damage
and
a
Barrister
at
4-5

Grays
Inn
Square,
She
has
published
extensively including
(with
J
L
Simpson)
Interna-
tional
Arbitration:
law
and
procedure
1959;
Editor
International
Law
and
Developing
States
Vol
11988:
vol.
II;
An
Introduction

to
Interna-
tional
Economic
law
1992;
Joint
Development
of
Qffshore
Oil
and
Gas:
A
Model Agreement
for
States
for
Joint
Development
with
Explanatory
Commentary
Vol
L
1989,
vol
.1f,
1990;
Law

of
State
Immunity
2002,
pb
2004.
Geoff
Gilbert
is
Professor
of
Law
in
the
Department
of
Law,
University
of
Essex.
He
was part
of
the
Human
Rights
Centre's
research
programme
on

human rights
in
situations
of
acute
crisis
that
was
carried out
on
behalf
of
DFID.
He
has carried out
human rights
training
on
behalf
of
the
Council
of
Europe
and
UNHCR
in
the
Russian
Federation

(Siberia,
the
Urals and
Kalmykskaya),
Georgia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia,
Macedonia
and
Kosovo.
He
has
advised governments
on
their
laws
in
Central and
Eastern Europe,
the
Balkans
and the
FSU,
and was the
Director
of
the
OSCE
training
programme

on
torture
for
judges
in
Serbia
&
Montenegro.
He
has
acted
as an
expert
consultant
on
refugees
and
terrorism
for
UNHCR.
He
is
Director
of
Studies
for
the
UNHCR
Thematic
Course

on
Refugee Law
and
Human
Rights
for
Adjudicators
He
is
the
Editor
in
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal x 2007
Contributors
Chief
of
the
International
Journal
of
Refugee
Law.
He
is
the
author
of
Responding
to
International

Crime
(2006).
His
specialisms
are
inter-
national
human
rights
law,
the
protection
of
refugees
and
displaced
persons
in
international
law,
and
international
criminal
law.
John
P.
Grant
is
Professor
of

Law, Lewis
& Clark
School
of
Law,
Portland,
Oregon,
where
he
teaches
International Law
and
Interna-
tional Human
Rights,
and
Emeritus
Professor
of
International Law,
University
of
Glasgow,
Scotland.
Among
his
publications
are
the
Encyclopaedic

Dictionary
of
International
Law
(1st
ed.
1986
with
Parry,
2nd
ed.
2003
with
Barker),
The
Lockerbie Trial:
A
Documen-
tary
History
(2004)
and
International
Criminal
Law
Deskbook
(with
Barker,
2006).
Tom

Grant
is
a
senior
research
fellow
of
Wolfson College
and
a
research
associate
of
the
Lauterpacht
Centre
for International Law,
University
of
Cambridge.
He
has
assisted
on
cases before
various
courts
and
tribunals
and

has
acted
as
advisor
or
consultant
on
a
number
of
public
international
law
matters.
He
is
admitted
to
the
bars
of
Massachusetts,
New
York
and
Washington,
DC.
Stephen
C.
Neff

is
a
Reader
in
Public
International Law
at
the
University
of
Edinburgh,
School
of
Law.
He
is
also
a
qualified
lawyer
in
England,
as
well
as
in
two
jurisdictions
in
the

United
States. He
is
the
author
of
Rights
and
Duties
of
Neutrals:
A
General
History
(2000).
Alfred
P.
Rubin
is
Distinguished Professor
of
International Law,
The
Fletcher
School
of
Law
&
Diplomacy,
Tufts University, where

he
teaches seminars
on
Origins
and
Development
of
International
Law,
Legal
Regulation
of
Armed
Conflict
and
Law
of
the
Sea.
Among
a
wealth
of
his
publications
are
the
Law
of
Piracy

(1988,
revised
2nd
ed.,
1998)
and
Ethics
and
Authority
in
International
Law
(1997).
Michael
Scharf
is
Professor
of
Law
and
Director
of
the
Frederick
K.
Cox
International
Law
Center
at

Case
Western
Reserve
University
School
of
Law.
In
February
2005,
Professor Scharf
and the
Public
International
Law
and
Policy
Group,
a
Non-Governmental
Organiza-
tion
he
co-founded,
were
nominated
for the
Nobel
Peace
Prize

by
six
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal xi 2007
Harvard Research
on
International
Law
governments
and
the
Prosecutor
of
an
International
Criminal
Tribunal
for
the
work
they
have
done
to
help
in
the
prosecution
of
major
war

criminals.
During
the
first
Bush
and
Clinton
administrations,
Scharf
served
in
the Office
of
the Legal
Adviser
of
the
U.S.
Department
of
State,
where
he
held
the
positions
of
Attorney-Adviser
for
Law

Enforcement
and
Intelligence,
Attorney-Adviser
for
United Nations
Affairs,
and
delegate
to the
United
Nations
Human
Rights Commis-
sion.
Scharf
is
the
author
of
over
sixty
scholarly articles
and
ten
books,
including
Balkan
Justice,
which

was
nominated
for
the
Pulitzer
Prize
in
1998,
The
International
Criminal
Tribunal
for
Rwanda,
which
was
awarded the
American
Society
of
International
Law's
Certificate
of
Merit
for the
Outstanding
book
in
International

Law
in
1999,
and
Peace
with
Justice,
which won the
International
Association
of
Penal
Law
Book
of
the
Year Award
for
2003.
Winner
of
the
Case
School
of
Law
Alumni
Association's
2005
"Distinguished

Teacher Award"
and
Ohio
Magazine's
2007
"Excellence
in
Education
Award,"
Scharf
teaches
International
Law, International
Criminal
Law,
the
Law
of
International Organizations,
and
a
War
Crimes
Research
Lab,
which
provides
research
assistance
to the

Prosecutors
of
the
International
Criminal
Tribunal
for
Rwanda,
the Special
Court
for
Sierra Leone,
the
International
Criminal Court,
the
Extraordinary
Chambers
in
the
Courts
of
Cambodia,
and
the
Iraqi
High Tribunal
on
issues
pending

before
those international
war
crimes
tribunals.
Elina
Steinerte
is
a
Research
Associate
at
the
Law
School
of
the
University
of
Bristol.
She
has
recently completed
her PhD
and
is
now
working
on
the

(UK)
Arts
and
Humanities
Research
Council-funded
project
on
the
implementation
of
the
Optional
Protocol
to
the
United
Nations Convention
against
Torture.
Co-author
(with
Wallace)
of
the
Nutcases:Public
International
Law
(2007).
Jeremy

A.
Thomas
(LLB,
LLM)
is
a
partner
in
the
international
law
firm
Ashurst,
and
he
is
based
in
London,
England.
He
is
the
author
of
numerous
articles
and
has
a

special
interest
in
the
history
of
interna-
tional
law.
His
publications
include the
Intertwining
of
Law
and
Theology
in
the
Writings
of
Hugo Grotius
in
the
Journal
of
the
History
of
International

Law
(1999)
and
History
and
International
Law
in
Asia:
A
Time
for
Review
in
Essays
in
Honour
of
Wang
Tieya
(1994).
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal xii 2007
Contributors
xiii
Rebecca
M.M. Wallace
is
Professor
of
International

Human
Rights
Law,
The
Robert
Gordon
University,
Aberdeen, Scotland.
Her
publi-
cations
include
A
Public
International
Law
Nutshell
(2006),
Interna-
tional
Law.
A
Student
Text
(1
st ed.
1987,
5th
ed.
2005)

and
Interna-
tional
Human Rights.
Text
and
Materials
(2001).
She
is
a
member
of
Lincoln's
Inn,
a
non-practising
member
of
the
English
Bar
and
a
part-
time
Immigration
Judge.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal xiii 2007
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal xiv 2007

Chapter
1
THE
HARVARD
RESEARCH:
GENESIS
TO
EXODUS
AND BEYOND
John
P.
Grant
andJ.
Craig
Barker
In
the
1928
volume
of
the
American
Journal
of
International Law,
a
brief
note
appears
in

the
Editorial
Comment
section,
over
the name
of
Manley
0.
Hudson.
It begins:
"On
the
initiative
of
the
Faculty
of
the
Harvard
Law
School,
a
group
of
Americans
interested
in
international
law

has
undertaken
to
organize
a
co6perative
research
in
international
law,
dealing
with
the
three
topics
which
have been
selected
for
the
agenda
of
the
[League
of
Nations]
Conference
for the
Codification
of

International
Law,
to
be
held
in
1929.
"
1
In
two
pages,
the note
goes
on to
outline
the
involvement
of
the
League's
Assembly
in
the
codification
of
international
law,
the
identification

of
nationality,
State
responsibility
and
territorial
waters
as
the
first
three
topics
selected
for codification,
the
appointment
at
Harvard
of
an
advisory
committee
of
distinguished
experts,
under
the
chairmanship
of
George

W.
Wickersham
of
New
York,
and
of
an
executive
commit-
tee,
with
Hudson
as
director
of
research,
and
the
nomination
of
repor-
ters
for
the
three
codification
topics.
From
this

modest
announcement
emerged
a
project
that
would
endure
for
12
years,
from
1927
to
1939,
produce
a
total
of
13
draft
conventions,
with
accompanying commen-
taries,
and
contribute substantially
to
the
development

of
international
law
in
the 20th
Century.
League
of
Nations'
Codification
Efforts
The
Harvard
Research
has
to
be
located
in
the
context
of
the
contemporary
efforts
to
codify
international
law
during

the era
of
the
1
Hudson,
Research
in
International
Law,
22
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
151
(1928).
A
note
by
Hudson
in
almost
identical terms
appeared
in
22
Am.
Pol.
Sci.
R.

451
(1928).
The
conference
to
which Hudson referred
in
fact
took
place
in
1930.
2
An
excellent
overview
of
the
Research
and
Hudson's
role
in
it is
provided
by
Kenny,
Manley
0.
Hudson

and
the Harvard
Research
in
International
Law
1927-40,
11
Int.
Lawyer
319
(1977).
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 1 2007
Harvard Research
on
International
Law
League
of
Nations.
The
simple
truth
is
that
the
League's
Covenant
3
had

no
provision equivalent
to
Article
13(l)(a)
of
the
United
Nations
Charter,
requiring
the
General
Assembly
to
initiate
studies
and
make
recommendations
in
order,
inter
alia,
to
"encourag[e] the
progressive
development
of
international

law and
its
codification."
In
fulfillment
of
its
duties under Article
13(1)(a),
the
U.N.
General
Assembly
estab-
lished the
International
Law
Commission
in
19474
and
this body
has
been
the
principal
instrument
through
which
the

progressive
develop-
ment
of
international
law
and
its
codification
have
been
undertaken.
5
No
organ
of
the
League
of
Nations
had
any
obligation
in
respect
of
international
law.
Nonetheless,
the

League
did
involve
itself
in
the
codification
of
international
law,
6
but
with limited
palpable
success.
As
early
as
1920,
the
Advisory
Committee
of
Jurists
charged with
the
task
of
drafting
the Statute

of
the
Permanent
Court
of
International
Justice
recommended
the
continuation
of
the
work
of
the
Hague
conferences
of
1899
and
1907
with
a
view
to
developing
and
codify-
ing
international

law.
7
It
was
not
until
1924
that
the
League's
Assembly
acted
on
this
recommendation,
at
which
time
it
recom-
mended
that
the
Council
convene
a
committee
of
experts
to

prepare a
list
of
areas
of
international
law
in
which
international agreement
was
"most
desirable
and
realizable;"
and,
after
receiving
the
views
of
governments,
to
report
to
the Council
on
the
areas
"sufficiently

ripe"
for agreement
and
on
the
procedure
that
might
be
followed
for
the
3
225
C.T.S.
188.
4
By
Resolution
174
(II)
of
17
November
1947,
to
which
was
annexed
the

Commission's
Statute;
reprinted
in
42
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Supp.)
2
(1948).
5
See
Briggs,
The
International
Law
Commission
(1965);
Ramcharan,
The
International
Law
Commission:
Its
Approach
to
the
Codification

and
Progres-
sive
Development
of
International
Law
(1973);
Sinclair,
The
International
Law
Commission
(1987);
Anderson,
Boyle,
Lowe
and
Wickremasinghe,
The
Interna-
tional
Law
Commission
and
the
Future
of
International
Law

(1998);
Watts,
The
International
Law
Commission
1947-1998
(1999);
Morton,
The
International
Law
Commission
of
the
United
Nations
(2000).
6
The
League's
involvement
is
succinctly
set
out,
with
the
relevant
resolutions

appended,
in
the
Historical
Survey
of
Development
of
International
Law
and
its
Codification
by
International
Conferences
1947,
U.N.
Doc.
A/AC.
10/7,
Part
I11;
reprinted
in
41
Am.
J.
Int'IL.
(Supp.)

29
(1947).
7
Resolution
of
24
July
1920,
Procds-Verbaux
of
the
Proceedings
of
the
Committee,
1920,
747.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 2 2007
The
Harvard
Research:
Genesis
to
Exodus
elaboration
of
agreements
in
those
areas.

8
In
response,
the Council
established
a
committee,
termed
the
Committee
[of
Experts]
for
the
Progressive
Codification
of
International
Law, consisting
of
seven-
teen
distinguished
jurists,
including, interestingly,
George
W.
Wicker-
sham, who
was

later
to
play
such
a
prominent part
in
the
Harvard
Research.
9
The
Committee
of
Experts
met
in
three
sessions,
in
April
1925,
January
1926
and
April
1927.10
At
the
first session,

the
Committee
identified
eleven
fields
of
international
law
to
be
investigated
by
subcommittees
"with
a
view
to
later
elaboration
of
detailed
propo-
sals."
' 1
They
were
nationality, territorial
waters,
diplomatic
privileges

and
immunities,
status
of
government
ships
engaged
in
commerce,
extradition,
State
responsibility,
treaties, piracy,
prescription
in
international
law,
exploitation
of
the
product
of
the
seas
and
extra-
territorial
jurisdiction.
12
The

second
session
was devoted
to the
consideration
of
the
reports
of
the
sub-committees
and
the
formula-
tion
of
"questionnaires."
13
Questionnaires
Nos.
1
(nationality),
14
2
(territorial waters)
15
and
6
(piracy)
16

each
comprised
a
narrative
of
the
issues involved
in
codification
and
a
preliminary
draft
convention.
Questionnaires
No.
3
(diplomatic
privileges
and
immunities),
1 7
4
(State
responsibility),
18
5
(treaties)
19
and

7
(exploitation
of
the
product
'
Resolution
of
22
September
1922,
L.N.O.J., Spec.
Supp., No.
21,
1922,
10.
9
Resolution
of
12
December
1924,
L.N.O.J.,
February
1924,
274.
10
See
Rosenne,
The

League
of
Nations
Committee
of
Experts
for
the
Progres-
sive
Codification
of
International
Law
(1972),
Introduction;
all
the
important
documents
concerning
the
Committee
of
Experts
are
contained
in
this
two-

volume
set.
"L.N.
Doc.
C.275.1925.V;
reproduced
in
20
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Spec.
Supp.)
14-15
(1926).
12
Id.;
reproduced
in
20 Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Spec.
Supp.)
17
(1926).
13
L.N.

Doc.
C.44.M.21.1926.V;
reproduced
in
20
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Spec. Supp.)
17
(1926).
14
See
20
Am.
J.
Int'I
L.
(Spec.
Supp.)
21-26
(1926).
15
Ibid.,
62
147.
16
Ibid.,
222

229.
17
Ibid.,
148
175.
"Ibid.,
176-203.
'9
Ibid.,
204-211.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 3 2007
Harvard
Research
on
International
Law
of
the
seas)
20
merely identified
the
principal
issues
that
would
require
to
be
addressed

in
any
codifying convention.
These
numbered
ques-
tionnaires
were to
be
transmitted
to
governments
for
their
"opinion,"
upon
the
receipt
of
which
the
Committee
would recommend
the
topics
that
were
"sufficiently
ripe"
for codification.

2
'
As
to
extradi-
tion
22
and
extra-territorial
jurisdiction,
23
the
Committee's
reports
were
not
included
on
the
provisional
list
of
subjects
for
codification
and
were
forwarded
to
governments "for

their
information.
24
The
Committee's
special
report
on
the status
of
government
ships
employed
in
commerce
25
was
remitted
to
the
Council
of
the
League
of
Nations;
26
and the
question
of

prescription
in
international
law
was
deferred
until
the
next
meeting
of
the
Committee.
27
At
its
third
session, the
Committee
of
Experts
considered
the
opinions submitted
by
governments
to the
seven
questionnaires,
concluding

that
"generally speaking,
[all]
the
above
questions,
within
the
limits
indicated
in
the
respective
questionnaires,
are
now,
in
the
words
of
the
terms
of
reference,
'sufficiently
ripe.
'
'
28
Additionally,

the
Committee
identified
four further
areas
of
international
law
for
which
it
prepared
questionnaires
to
be
forwarded
to
governments:
judicial
assistance
in
penal
matters,
legal
position
and
functions
of
consuls,
revision

of
the
classification
of
diplomatic
agents
and
competence
of
courts
in
regard
to
foreign
States.
29
In
September
1927,
the
Assembly
of
the
League
of
Nations
resolved
to
submit nationality, territorial
waters

and State
respon-
sibility
to
the
"first"
codification
conference,
to
invite
the Council
to
make
arrangements for
The
Hague
to
be
the venue
of
that
conference
and
to
entrust
the
Council
with
the
establishment

of
a
Preparatory
2
0
Ibid.,
230
241.
2
1
Ibid.,
19.
2
2
Ibid.,
242-251.
23
Ibid.,
252-269.
24
Ibid.,
20.
2
5
Ibid.,
260-278.
26
Ibid.,
20.
27

id.
28
22
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Spec.
Supp.)
I
at
3
(1928).
Annex
III
to
this document
contains the analysis
of
the
governmental opinions.
29
Ibid.,
1.
The
questionnaires
appear
at
46
103,

104
110,
111
116
and
117
132
respectively.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 4 2007
The
Harvard
Research:
Genesis
to
Exodus
Committee,
of
five
experts,
"to
prepare
a
report comprising
suffi-
ciently detailed
bases
of
discussion
on
each

question 1
3
The
Preparatory
Committee
met
first
in
February
1928
to
adopt
three
lists
of
points
on
which information
from
governments
was sought;
that
information
was
to
cover
States'
existing
internal
law

and
interna-
tional
practice
and
their
views
de
lege
ferenda.
31
Later,
in
May
of
1929,
the
Committee
drafted
in
final
form
three
sets
of
Bases
of
Discussion,
for
nationality,

3 2
territorial
waters
33
and State
responsi-
bility,
3 4
these bases being
described
subsequently
as
"neither
in
the
nature
of
a
mere
restatement
of
existing
law
nor
purely
in
the
nature
of
proposals

for
new
law."
3
5
In
one
month,
from
13
March
to
12
April
1930,
the
representatives
of
forty-eight
States
debated, through
three
committees,
36
the
Bases
of
Discussion
with
a

view
to
adopting
codifying
conventions.
37
The
Hague Conference
for
the
Codification
of
International
Law
was,
by
any
standards,
a
disappointment.
There was
no
codifying
convention
on
territorial
waters
or
State
responsibility.

As
far
as
nationality
was
concerned,
all
that
emerged were
four agreements
on
aspects
of
the
30
Resolution
of
27
September
1927,
L.N.O.J.
Spec. Supp.
No.
53, 9;
22
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Spec.

Supp.)
231
(1928).
31
L.N. Doc.
C.44.M.21.1928.V.
32
L.N.
Doc.
C.73.M.38.1929.V;
reprinted
in
Rosenne,
The
League
of
Nations
Conference
for
the
Codification
ofInternational
Law
(1930)
(1975),
Vol.
1, 1.
33
L.N.
Doc.

C.74.M.39.1929.V;
reprinted
in
Rosenne,
The
League
of
Nations
Conference
for
the
Codification
ofInternational
Law
(1930)
(1975),
Vol.
2,
219.
34
L.N.
Doc.
C.75.M.69.1929.V;
reprinted
in
Rosenne,
The
League
of
Nations

Conference
for
the
Codification
ofInternational
Law
(1930)
(1975),
Vol.
2,423.
35
Historical
Survey
of
Development
of
International
Law
and
its
Codification
by
International
Conferences
1947,
supra
n.
6,
79.
36

I.
Nationality,
L.N.
Doc.
C.351(a).M.145(a)1930.
V;
reprinted
in
Rosenne,
supra
note
34,
Vol.
3,
881-1201;
II.
Territorial
Waters,
L.N.
Doc.
C.351(b).M.145(b).1930.V, reprinted
in
Rosenne,
supra
note
34,
Vol.
4,
1203-
1423;

II
Responsibility
of
States,
L.N. Doc.
351
(c).M. 145(c).
1930.V,
reprinted
in
Rosenne,
supra
n.
34,
Vol.
4,
1425
1661.
37
See
The
Final
Act
of
the
Conference
for
the
Codification
of

International
Law,
L.N. Doc.
V.Legal.
1930.V.7.
The
Final
Act
was
reprinted
in
24
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
169
(1930)
and
Rosenne,
supra
n.
34,
Vol.
3,
840.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 5 2007
Harvard Research
on
International

Law
law
on
nationality,
38
and
not
the single
convention
that
had
been
envisaged.
The
participants
at
the
Hague Conference
clearly
thought
they
were
attending
the
first
of
a
series
of
League-sponsored

codification
conferences,
for,
annexed
to
the Final
Act,
is
a
recommendation
urging
the
continuation
of
that
conference's
work
and
suggesting
procedural
changes.
39
The
Eleventh Assembly
took
up
this
call and
invited States'
view

on
possible subjects
for
codification.
4 °
Conscious
of
the
lack
of
strong
support
for
a
codification
programme,
the
Twelfth
Assembly
transferred
the
initiative
for
codification
from
the
League
to its
members,
41

effectively
ending
the
process
in
the era
of
the
League.
4
2
Hindsight
provided
some
telling
reasons
for
the
relative
fail-
ure
of
the
League's
codification
endeavors.
Shabtai
Rosenne,
who has
chronicled

the
entire
process
in
two books,
4
3
and
the careful
analysis
by
the U.N.
Secretariat
of
early
codification
efforts
as
potential
models
for
codification
in
the
U.N.
era
44
both
identified defects
in

the
process
and
the
attitude
and
perception
of
its
participants.
Principally,
the
Hague Conference attempted
too
much
in
too
little
time, aiming to
adopt
three
codification
conventions
on
important
matters
in
one
month.
4

'
Also,
at
the
time,
the
distinction
between
mere
codification
38
See
Convention
on
Certain Questions relating
to the
Conflict
of
Nationality
Laws,
179
L.N.TS.
89;
Protocol
relating
to
Military
Obligations
in
Certain

Cases
of
Double Nationality,
178
L.N.S.
227;
Protocol
relating
to
a
Certain
Case
of
Statelessness,
179
L.N.TS.
179;
and
Special
Protocol
relating
to
Statelessness,
L.N.
Doc.
C.27.M.16.193
I.V.
39
The
Final

Act
of
the
Conference
for
the
Codification
of
International
Law,
supra
n.
37,
171,
Appendix
10.
40
Resolution
of
3
October
1930,
L.N.O.J,
Spec.
Supp.,
No.
83,
9.
41
Resolution

of
26
September
193
1,
L.N.O.J.
Spec.
Supp.,
No.
92,
9.
42
See
Rosenne,
supra
n.
34,
xl;
Hudson,
The
Prospect
for
Future
Codification,
26
Am.
J.
Int'lL.
137
at

143
(1932).
43
The
League
of
Nations
Committee
of
Experts
for
the
Progressive
Codification
of
International
Law
(1972)
and
The
League
of
Nations
Conference
for
the
Codification
qf
International
Law

(1930)
(1975).
44
Historical
Survey
of
Development
of
International
Law
and
its
Codification
by
International
Conferences
1947,
supra
n.
6.
45
Ibid.,
54.
See
also
Rosenne,
supra
n.
34,
Vol.

1,
xlii;
Miller,
The
Hague
Codification
Conference
24 Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
674
at
693
(1930);
Lauterpacht,
Eli
(ed.),
International
Law. Collected
Papers
of
Hersch
Lauterpacht
(1970),
Vol.
1,
106.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 6 2007
The

Harvard
Research:
Genesis
to
Exodus
of
existing
rules
and
progressive
development
of
the law
with
addi-
tions
and
amendments
to
these
rules was
not
clearly
understood
by
States, with the
result that
the
Hague
participants

had
difficulty in
understanding
and
accepting
the
process
in
which they
were
engaged.
46
And
all
who examined
the
League's
codification
process
have
emphasized
the
critical
importance
of
preparation
and
consulta-
tion
prior

to
a
codification
conference.
47
These
things
having
been
said,
the legacy
of
the
League's
foray
into
codification
is
far
from
negative.
In
the
words
of
Manley
Hudson,
who
among
other things

found
time
to
be
the
U.S.
technical
adviser
to
the
Hague conference:
"A
beginning
has
been
made, some
steps have
been
taken,
some
lessons
have
been learned,
some
mis-
takes
have
been
exposed,
some

threads
have
been
left
hanging
which
a
future
conference
may
pick
up,
some
lines
have
been
forged
along
which future
effort
may
proceed.
48
Or,
as
put
slightly
differently,
by
Shabtai

Rosenne:
"the
accomplishment
of
the
Committee
of
Experts,
the entire
work
of
the
1930
Codification
Conference
(including
the
Preparatory Committee)
has
been caught
in
the broad sweep
of
the
United
Nations
Codification
effort ,
49
The

Harvard Research Phases
The
Harvard
Research
in
International Law
was conducted
in four
phases.
The
aim
of
each
of
the
thirteen
projects
within
these
four
phases
was
the
preparation
of
a
draft
convention,
50
representing

the
collective
view
of
a
group
of
Americans
with
special
interest
in
the
development
of
international
law
(and,
though not
stated,
with
exper-
46
Ibid.,
85.
See
also
Rosenne,
supra
n.

10,
Vol.
1,
at
xl; Hudson, 24
Am.
Soc'y
Int'lL.
Proc
230-231
(1930);
Brierly,
The
Future
of
Codification,
12
B.Y.I.
L.
1
at
5-6
(1931);
Lauterpacht,
supra
n.
45,
454-456.
47
Ibid.,

85-86.
See
also
Rosenne,
supra
n.
10,
Vol.
1,
at
xlii-xliii;
Miller,
supra
n.
45,
693;
Hudson,
The
First
Conference for
the
Codification
of
International
Law,
24
Am.
J.
Int'lL.
447

at
465
(1930);
Brierly,
supra
n.
46,
11.
48
Supra
n.
42,
465-466.
4
9
Supra
n.
10,
Vol.
1,
xlv.
50
General
Introduction,
23
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Spec.

Supp.)
I
at
3
(1929).
See
also
the
General
Introductions
to the
other
three
phase:
26
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Supp.)
I
at
5
(1932),
29
Am.
J.
Int'lL.
(Supp.)
I

at
8
(1935)
and
33
Am.
J.
Int'lL
.(Supp.)
I
at
10
(1939).
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 7 2007
Harvard Research
on
International
Law
tise
in
the
topic
under investigation),
in
the
hope
that
each
draft
convention

would
be
"of
interest"
to,
51
or
"merit
the
attention"
of,
5
2
those involved
in
codifying
international
law.
In
his
1928
note
announcing
the
Harvard
Research, Manley
Hudson
said
only
that

the
research
"should
be
undertaken along
the
general
lines
followed
by
the
Institut
de
Droit
International
and the
American Law
Institute, with
a
director
of
research,
with
a
reporter
for
each
of
the
subjects

to
be
considered
,
and
with
advisers
to
assist
each
of
the
reporters.
' 3
That
brief
description
of
how the
Harvard
Research
was
to
be
conducted
for
the
nationality,
State
responsibility

and
territorial waters
projects was
essentially the
procedure
that
was
followed
in
all
four phases
of
the
Research.
4
The
Institut,
founded
in
1873,
had,
by
the
1920s,
developed
a
method
of
restating
and

codifying
international
law
through
the
identification
of
suitable
topics,
appointment
of
rapporteurs
and
advisers,
investiga-
tion and
study
and eventual
adoption
of
texts
at
regular
sessions
of
the
entire
Institut.
55
A

broadly similar
model
was adopted
to
restate
American
law
by
the
American
Law
Institute.
6
First
phase
(1927-29)
On
27
September
1927,
the
Eighth Assembly
of
the
League
of
Na-
tions
identified
nationality,

State
responsibility
and
territorial waters
51
General
Introduction,
23
Am.
J.
Int'lL.
(Spec.
Supp) 1
at
9
(1929)
and
26
Am.
J.
Int'l
Law.
(Supp.)
I
at
14
(1932).
52
General
Introduction,

29
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Supp.)l
at
8
(1935)
and
33
Am.
J.
Int'lL.
(Supp.)
I
at
10
(1939).
53
Supra
n.
I
at
152.
See
also
General
Introduction,
23

Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
I
at
3
(1929)
which reversed the
order:
"The
method followed
by
the
American
Law
Institute,
which
is
very
similar
to
that
of
the
Institut
de
Droit
International,
was

adopted
for
the
Research "
54
See
General
Introductions
26
Am.
J.
Int'l
Law.
(Supp.)
1
at
5
(1932).
55
For
the
history
of
the
Institut,
see
Abrams,
The
Emergence
of

International
Law Societies,
19
Review
of
Politics
361
(1957);
Hambro,
The
Centenary
of
the
Institut
de
Droit
International,
43
Nordisk
Tidsskrift
Int'l
Ret.
9
(1973).
See
also,
<www.idi-iil.org>
56
See
ALI,

The
American
Law
Institute's
Seventy-fifth
Anniversary
(1998),
especially
Chaps.
I
and
2.
See
also ALl,
Capturing
the
Voice
of
the
ALL
A
Handbook
for
ALI
Reporters
and
those
who
Review
their

Work
(2005);
and
<www.ali.org>
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 8 2007
The
Harvard
Research:
Genesis
to
Exodus
as
the
subjects
of
its
first
codification
conference.
57
In
response,
the
Advisory Committee
of
the
Harvard
Research,
comprising
forty-four

American
scholars
and
jurists,
approved
the
nomination
of
three
reporters,
Richard
W.
Flournoy,
Jr.,
for nationality,
Edwin
M.
Borchard
for
State
responsibility
and George
Grafton
Wilson for
terri-
torial
waters.
58
These
reporters,

along
with
the
Research's
Director
of
Research, Manley
0.
Hudson,
appointed
ten
advisers
for each
of
the
topics.
59
The
reporters
and
advisers
met
between
early
1928
and
late
1929;
on
twelve

separate days
in
the
case
of
nationality, thirteen
days
in
the
case
of
State
responsibility
and
fourteen
days
in
the
case
of
territorial
waters.
60
The
outcome
of
these
deliberations
was
three

draft
conventions
and
accompanying
"Comments:"
on
the
Law
of
Nationality,
61
on
the
Law
of
Responsibility
of
States for
Damage
done
in
their
Territory
to
62
the
Person
or
Property
of

Foreigners,
and
on
the
Law
of
Territorial
Waters.
63
Additionally,
the
Research
published
a
collection
of
na-
tionality
laws
in
1930.64
The
three
draft
convention
were
specifically
stated
to
have

been
"recommended"
by
the
Advisory
Committee
and
"authorized"
by
the
Faculty
at
Harvard
Law
School.
6
They
are
equally
specifically
declared
not
to
represent
the
individual
view
of
the
persons involved

57
L.N.O.J.
Spec.
Supp.,
No.
53,
9.
58
General Introduction,
23
Am.
J.
Int'lL.
(Spec.
Supp.)
I
at
7
8
(1929).
5
9
id.
6
0
Ibid.,
8.
61
Ibid.,
11.

The
draft convention
and
commentary
have
been
reprinted
by
W.S.
Hein
in
the
Harvard
Research
in
International
Law
(2008).
The
text
of
the
draft
convention
appears
below
as
Appendix
1.
62

Ibid.,
131.
The
draft
convention
and
commentary
have
been reprinted
by
W.S.
Hein
in
the
Harvard
Research
in
International
Law
(2008).
The
text
of
the
draft
convention
appears below
as
Appendix
2.

63
Ibid.,
241.
The
draft
convention
and
commentary
have
been reprinted
by
W.S.
Hein
in
the
Harvard
Research
in
International
Law
(2008).
The
text
of
the
draft
convention
appears below
as
Appendix

3.
64
Flournoy
and
Hudson,
A
Collection
of
the
Nationality
Laws
of
Various
Countries
(1930).
65
General
Introduction,
23
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Spec.
Supp.)
1
at
9
(1929).
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 9 2007

Harvard
Research
on
International
Law
in
their
preparation
and
authorization;
and, being
"wholly
unofficial,"
they
did
not
represent
the
views
of
the
U.S.
Government.
66
Second
phase
(1929-32)
In
February
1929,

and
before
the
League
of
Nations
Codification
Conference
had
met,
the
Advisory Committee
decided
to
undertake
the
preparation
of
draft conventions
in
four additional
areas
identified
by
the
League
of
Nations
Committee
of

Experts
on
the
Progressive
Codification
of
International Law
as
ripe
for codification:
67
Diplo-
matic
Privileges
and
Immunities,
with Jesse
S.
Reeves
as
reporter
and
nineteen
advisers; Legal
Position
and
Functions
of
Consuls,
with

Quincy Wright
as
reporter
and
fourteen advisers;
Competence
of
Courts
in
regard
to
Foreign
States,
with
Philip
C.
Jessup
as
reporter
and
twenty
advisers;
and
Piracy, with Joseph
W.
Bingham
as
reporter
and
fifteen advisers.

68
Meetings
of
the
research
teams
took
place
between
late
1930 and
late
193
1,69
with fifteen
meetings
on
diplomatic
privileges
and
immunities, thirteen
each
on
consuls
and
the
competence
of
courts
and

nine
on
piracy.
7
0
Four
drafts and
commentaries emanated
from
these
deliberations:
on
Diplomatic
Privileges
and
Immunities,
71
on
the
Legal
Position
and
Functions
of
Consuls,
72
on the
Competence
of
Courts

in
regard
to
Foreign
States,
73
and
on
Piracy.
74
Also
published
by
the
Research
at
66
id.
67
L.N.O.J. Supp.
No.
64,
143.
68
General Introduction,
26
Am.
J.
Int'lL.
(Supp.)

I
at
10
12
(1932).
69
id.
7
0
id.
71
Ibid.,
19.
The
draft
convention
and
commentary
have
been
reprinted
by
W.S.
Hein
in
the
Harvard
Research
in
International

Law
(2008).
The
text
of
the
draft
convention
appears
below
as
Appendix
4.
72
Ibid.,
189
(1932).
The
draft
convention
and
commentary
have
been
reprinted
by W.S.
Hein
in
the
Harvard

Research
in
International
Law
(2008).
The
text
of
the
draft
convention
appears
below
as
Appendix
5.
73
Ibid.,
451
(1932).
The
draft
convention
and
commentary
have
been
reprinted
by
W.S.

Hein
in
the
Harvard
Research
in
International
Law
(2008).
The
text
of
the
draft convention
appears below
as
Appendix
5.
74
Ibid.,
739
(1932).
The
draft
convention
and
commentary
have
been
reprinted

by
W.S.
Hein
in
the
Harvard
Research
in
International
Law
(2008).
The
text
of
the
draft convention
appears below
as
Appendix
6.
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 10 2007
The
Harvard
Research:
Genesis
to
Exodus
this time
was
a

collection
of
piracy
laws;
75
and
in
1933,
a
collection
of
diplomatic
and
consular
laws
was
published
in
conjunction
with
the
Carnegie
Endowment
for
International
Peace.
76
The
draft conventions
and

commentaries
are
stated
not
to
represent
the
views
of
the
individuals
involved
in
their
preparation,
nor
the
views
of
the
U.S.
Government.
77
These
same
disclaimers
appear in
respect
of
the

draft
conventions
in
the
third
and
fourth
phases
of
the
Harvard
Research.
78
Significantly,
in
none
of
the
phases
after
the
first
phase
in
1932
is
there
any
mention
of

the
Advisory
Committee
"recommending"
the
draft
conventions,
or
of
the
Harvard
Faculty
"authorizing"
them.
For
the
final
two
draft
conventions
in
the
Harvard
Research,
on
neutrality
and
aggression,
there
is

a
further,
almost
superfluous,
disclaimer,
which
reads:
"The
considerations
of
the
Draft
Convention

revealed
fundamental differences
of
opinion regarding
the
general
organization
of
the
draft,
its
underlying theories,
and
a
number
of

the specific
rules
and
principles
set forth
therein.
The
Research
nevertheless
presents
it,
without
any
implication
that
the
Draft
as
published
reflects
even
a
consensus
of
the
members
of
the
Advisory Committee,
hoping

that
its
debates
upon
the
problem
may
be
continued among
scholars
throughout
the
world
with
a
view
to
the
further
clarification
of
the
subject.,
7
9
Third phase
(1932-35)
In
February
1932,

the
Advisory Committee
decided
to
continue
the
Harvard
Research for
a
third
phase
and
identified
three
topics
for
consideration: extradition,
jurisdiction
with
respect
to
crime
and
treaties.
80
The
League
of
Nations
Committee

of
Experts
on
the Pro-
71
Morrison,
A
Collection
of
Piracy
Laws
of
Various
Countries,
26
Am.
J
Int'l
L.
(Supp.)
887
(1932).
76
Feller
and
Hudson,
A
Collection
of
the

Diplomatic
and
Consular
Laws
and
Regulations
of
Various
Countries
(1933).
77
General
Introduction,
26
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Supp.)
1
at
14
(1932).
78
General
Introduction,
29
Am.
J.
Int'l

L.
(Supp.)
1
at
8
(1935),
General
Intro-
duction,
33
Am.
J.
Int'lL.
(Supp.)
I
at
11
(1939).
79
33
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Supp.)
175
and
827.
In
addition,

a
footnote
from
that
statement
at
the beginning
of
the
text
of
the
each
draft convention refers
to
the
disclaimers
contained
in
the
General Introduction.
'o
General
Introduction,
29
Am.
J.
Int'l
L.
(Supp.)

1
at
2-3
and
5-7
(1935).
HeinOnline 1 John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Harv. Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal 11 2007