I may, however, perhaps be permitted to remark that he seems to have been misinformed when he states that the Institute of International Law has arrived at no decision upon the subject.

The facts are as follows: The problems presented by the new art of aerostation have been under the consideration of the Institute since 1900, producing a large literature of reports, counter-reports, observations, and draft rules, to debates upon which no fewer than four sittings were devoted at the Madrid meeting in 1911.

Wide differences of opinion then disclosed themselves as to territorial rights over the air, the radical opposition being between those members who, with M.Fauchille, the Reporter of the Committee, would presume in favour of freedom of aerial navigation, subject, as they would admit, to some measures of territorial precaution, and those who, like the present writer ("il se proclame oppose au principe de la liberte de la navigation aerienne, et s'en tiendrait[A] plutot au principe _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.