AJIL is a leading peer-reviewed journal, published quarterly since 1907. It features articles, editorials, notes, comments, and book reviews by pre-eminent scholars and practitioners from around the world addressing developments in public and private international law. The Journal also contains analyses of decisions by national and international courts and tribunals as well as a section on contemporary U.S. practice in international law. AJIL is indispensable for all professionals working in international law, economics, trade, and foreign affairs.

Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org.

This item is part of JSTOR collection
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The American Journal of International Law © 1933 Cambridge University Press
Request Permissions