The opening of the Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans under the Arctic ice by the atomic submarines U.S.S. Seadragon and U.S.S. Nautilus heralds the conquest of hitherto impenetrable undersea depths. Yet this event is only one of many triumphs along a new frontier of oceanographic exploration and development which is uncovering untapped sources of immeasurable wealth and benefits for all peoples. But even as we confidently prepare to harness these vast natural resources of the oceans, we must seek to achieve equitable agreements on international laws of the sea by which nations will abide. Only thus can the freedom of the seas and the right to harvest its resources be ensured without the risk of anarchy and wasteful depletion; only thus can nations avoid increased risk of strife and, possibly, war over conflicting claims to the bounty of the seas.

Opportunity to drive a significant salient, spearheaded by a specific implementation of the Tate Letter into the stubbornly resisting domain of sovereign immunity, was presented recently to both the State Department and the New York Supreme Court in Weilamann and McCloskey (Sheriff of City of New York) v. The Chase Manhattan Bank. Bank accounts of the State Bank and the Bank for Foreign Trade of the U.S.S.R., maintained in the Chase Manhattan Bank, had been attached by the New York City Sheriff in an action by Mrs. Weilamann, owner of Soviet state bonds in default. The party defendant, the Soviet Union, though served with process, did not appear in the main action, or directly enter a plea of immunity. In a further action in aid of the warrant of attachment, for a judgment directing the Chase Manhattan to turn over the moneys in these accounts to the Sheriff, pursuant to the warrant (the bank having refused to turn over the moneys to the Sheriff on the ground that it was not indebted to the U.S.S.R., but did owe balances to the two Soviet banks), the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the State Department's letter of interest suggesting immunity of the U.S.S.R. from attachment must be honored.

It has recently been held in The Netherlands that Indonesian nationalization measures failed to affect title to goods and securities situated in The Netherlands. Almost simultaneously, it was decided in Western Germany that the same measures did affect title to goods situated in Indonesia. Martin Domke concludes his admirably informative report on these decisionss with the statement that while the decisions of the Dutch courts correspond with the concept of non-recognition of foreign confiscatory decrees which assertedly still prevails in Western countries, the German courts in “abandoning” what is called the prevailing view did not submit convincing reasons for “changing the well-established principles of international law.” Issue is here taken only with these latter assertions. It will be contended that the German decisions were in conformity with well-established principles of international law and followed the prevailing practice of Western countries.

The U-2, a high-flying United States reconnaissance plane under pilot Francis G. Powers, permanently based in Turkey, but taking off from Pakistan territory with intent to cross Soviet territory and land in Norway, came down near Sverdlovsk, well within Soviet territory, on May 1, 1960. Such flights had been carried on for four years under general orders of the President, following refusal of the Soviet Government to accept the “open skies” proposal made by the President at the Summit Conference of 1955, and after such flights had become operational in 1956. Apparently the Soviet Government had become aware of such flights through radar tracking.

On July 27, 1955, an aircraft belonging to El Al Israel Airlines Ltd., making a scheduled commercial flight between Vienna and Lydda (Israel), penetrated over Bulgarian territory without previous authorization and was shot down by Bulgarian military aircraft. All the crew and the fifty-one passengers were killed. The ensuing diplomatic correspondence and negotiations producing no satisfactory results, the Government of Israel decided to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Proceedings were instituted against Bulgaria by Application of October 16, 1957.