The St. Lawrence Waterway and Power Project has been one of the most controversial questions before the Congress. It was defeated as a treaty and later as an executive agreement. There are apparently too many interests which consider themselves jeopardized by the project to obtain a majority support for the scheme.

Four different definitions of international law can be found in the literature. According to the narrowest of these definitions, international law is that legal order which regulates the relations between independent (sovereign) states. Thus the Permanent Court of International Justice stated in its judgment of September 7, 1927, in the Lotus case: “International Law governs relations between independent States.” But generally this definition is immediately expanded by defining international law as that legal order which governs relations between independent states and certain other sovereign communities (the Catholic Church, recognized belligerents). Brandweiner uses an even wider definition. He considers that international law includes also the legal rules governing the relations between states and other ecclesiastical communities as well as the relations of the different Churches inter se.

A peculiar and difficult nationality problem latent for decades in the relationship of American to Japanese law suddenly has emerged since the Japanese surrender in 1945. Directly involved is the nationality status of several thousands of Nisei (American-born individuals of Japanese paternity) who now are dismayed to discover that certain actions taken by them or on their behalf in the course of World War II either have seriously clouded their claims to American citizenship or have resulted in an apparently irrevocable expatriation. Stated briefly, the problem involved is that of the effect on American nationality of reacquisition of Japanese nationality obtained through a process known to Japanese law as “recovery.” In this article a description first is made of the Japanese legal institution of “recovery” and its relationship to other phases of Japanese nationality law. Consideration then is given to the application to “recoveries” of those articles and sections of the American Nationality Acts of 1907 and 1940 which deal with expatriation. In a final section, certain troublesome categories of ostensible “recoveries” as well as “recoveries” obtained during minority are examined, and various possibilities are explored for challenging the apparent loss of American nationality which has resulted.

The International Court of Justice on April 11, 1949, gave its unanimous opinion that, in the event of an agent of the United Nations in the performance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involving the responsibility of a Member (or a non-member) State, the United Nations as an organization has the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused the United Nations. By a majority of eleven, with four judges dissenting, the Court also gave its opinion that the United Nations has the capacity to claim reparation due in respect of the damage caused to the victim or to persons entitled through him. The Court by ten votes to five gave its further opinion that when the United Nations as an organization is bringing a claim for reparation of damage caused to its agent, it can only do so by basing its claim upon a breach of obligations due to itself; and that respect for this rule will usually prevent a conflict between the action of the United Nations and such rights as the agent’s national state may possess, and thus bring about a reconciliation between their claims.

The General Assembly of the United Nations, at its 179th plenary meeting on December 9, 1948, unanimously approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and proposed it for signature and ratification or accession in accordance with Article XI thereof. Article I of the Convention provides that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law.” Article V stipulates that the Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts made punishable under the Convention. Such persons are to be tried, according to Article VI, “by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.” The Convention thus envisages the possible creation of an international penal tribunal.