RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES 
In all of these acts of government control or of monopoly, there is no well 
defined limit between the municipal and the international jurisdiction. The 
principles of the doctrine of vested rights are very uncertain. Moreover, it 
would not be known how to apply limits to retroactive provisions. The 
modern tendency of society is to amend the old theory which invested the 
law with extremely individualistic nature. The main laws are now deemed 
to be mere regulations for the attainment of the ends of society. The guid- 
ance of these enactments by the spirit of justice is, of course, the only 
motive that should be ever present, and to which every tendency of the 
‘aw should be duly subjected. However, it has to be admitted that this 
entire issue is still in a state of evolution. It would not be possible to 
establish definite rules to cover all of the problems which modern society 
has to meet in the development of its economic life. In this case, as in 
other phases of responsibility, it is imperative that the task of codification 
should be confined to tracing the general lines within which international 
jurisprudence may gradually accomplish its work of compilation. The 
results of the inquiry of the Preparatory Committee of the Codification 
Conference justify this view. As regards the question of rights acquired by 
alien nationals, the replies of the various governments would seem to indicate 
that the subject is not yet quite ripe. The Government of South Africa 
subordinates the notion of acquired rights to the municipal law, and in this 
respect it does not recognize the alleged international responsibility of the 
State. The Government of Austria feels rather inclined to evade the solu- 
tion of these “vexatious problems”. The Government of Great Britain 
states that it is not known just precisely what status “acquired rights” should 
have. The Government of Switzerland believes that it would be of great 
interest to arrive at a satisfactory definition of acquired rights and their 
imitations. It maintains further that these rights are not absolute, and 
that the exercise of same beyond the limits established by the municipal law, 
is inadmissible. 
There is, however, a strong tendency to construe expropriation without 
Indemnity as being contrary to the common law of Nations, even though 
there should be no special convention on the subject. Among the important 
recent applications of this doctrine may be cited the decisions of the Per- 
manent Court of Arbitration of September 24, 1920, and October 1 3, 1922, 
the first dealing with the confiscation of property belonging to the eccle- 
siastical corporations of Portugal, and the second in connection with the 
requisition of vessels under construction in American shipyards for account 
of Norwegian nationals. The law on this point is more specifically covered by 
Ruling No. 6 and Decision No. 7 of the Permanent World Court: the former 
deals with the rights acquired by German settlers in Poland, and the applica- 
don of the Polish law of July 14, 1920. The Court ruled that the legal