The doctrine of the equality of states has undergone gradual modifications, especially in more recent times—since the establishment of the League of Nations. The great Powers have probably at all times dominated the political scene, particularly during the nineteenth century. But since there existed no international organization, this predominance did not express itself in legal, but only in political terms, although it may at times have assumed a quasilegal status, such as in regard to the lawmaking provisions of various treaties of the nineteenth century, sponsored mainly by the great Powers, which acquired the character of general international law. It was only when international organizations were established, based on legal principles, that the dominant position of the great Powers received legal sanction.

The veto question, one of the most controversial problems facing the United Nations, has several aspects of unequal importance. First, there is the great political problem of the relations between the great Powers on the one hand, and the small and middle-sized states on the other, as well as of their role in an international organization. This problem, being a political one, is reflected in the whole constitutional structure and functions of the organs of the United Nations. Second, there is the well-established traditional legal principle of equality of states, big and small, mighty and weak. This principle was reiterated in the United Nations Charter in Article 2 (1), which reads: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Both these aspects of the veto question are well known and have been discussed to such an extent as to be entirely left aside in these remarks.

The Geneva Conventions are the basis on which rest the rules of international law for the protection of the victims of armed conflicts.

Article 1 of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws permits “each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals.” It is precisely because the loss and acquisition of nationality is a matter of unilateral state action that statelessness under certain conditions does occur. The loss of nationality is sometimes closely related to the methods by which nationality is acquired. Most common among these methods of acquisition are: (1) by birth, (2) by minority, (3) by marriage.

The determination of the Allied Powers to seize and punish war criminals was implemented several years ago by the corollary decision to ask for their extradition from foreign countries. President Roosevelt announced on October 7, 1942