More than forty years after the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws, the American Law Institute (ALI) has begun work on a Third. Forty years is a long time, and the magnitude of the gap since the Second Restatement is itself a reason to think a Third is appropriate. But there are other reasons that it is time for a Third. In this essay, we want to explain why we think American choice of law has progressed to the point that a new Restatement is appropriate, and also, and relatedly, what we hope the Third Restatement can achieve.

These are our views, not those of the Ali, the Advisers to the Third Restatement, or even the other Reporters. It is simply our understanding of the significance of where we are in American conflicts scholarship and practice and where we might hope to go.

The recognition and guarantee of Swiss neutrality once definitely accomplished at the Congress of Paris in November, 1815, its subsequent progress was destined to be deeply affected by constitutional struggles in both federal and cantonal organizations.

It will be recollected that the initial change in the ancient Swiss alliance to a more modern form of government was introduced as the result of invasion by the French revolutionary forces, and that from April 12, 1798, to February 19, 1803, Switzerland was governed under the Helvetic Constitution imposed by the French, which created a military state with the cantons as administrative divisions only in accordance with Title II, section 15 of the instrument:—

In April 2019, member-states of UNCITRAL Working Group III requested the UNCITRAL Secretariat to undertake preparatory work for a Code of Conduct for Investor-State Dispute Settlement focusing on the implementation and enforceability of such a code. This groundbreaking development signals that, for the first time, a consensus exists that a code of ethics for Investor-State dispute settlement is desirable and needed. This contribution addresses three threshold questions that such preparatory work raises, namely: the preferred form of the code, the code's substantive reach, and the optimal process for bringing a code to fruition. As set out below, we urge that states adopt a mandatory common code of ethics for disputes involving states, and that arbitral institutions adopt this code as part of their rules for administering arbitration.

If Americans pause to consider and discuss the legal aspects of the action of the United States in landing Marines at Beirut on July 15, 1958, it is primarily for their own information and intelligence and that of their friends in other countries, and possibly that of people in so-called neutralist countries who may still be open to understanding in this matter.

When the contracting parties to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court met in Kampala in 2010 to discuss possible amendments to the statute, the main focus was, and has thereafter remained, on the crime of aggression. In addition to amending the statute to include the crime of aggression, however, the contracting parties amended Article 8 of the statute to include a broader range of war crimes in noninternational armed conflicts over which the ICC can have jurisdiction—inter alia, by including the use of chemical weapons. Although the latter amendment received much less attention from both the Kampala drafters and outside observers than the former, it is the use of chemical weapons that has come most quickly into play in world events. In particular, the use of chemical weapons by Syrian government forces in 2013 (and perhaps subsequently) has acutely raised questions concerning the extent of the ICC’s treaty-based jurisdiction, both under the unamended text of the Rome Statute or in situations where the amendment to Article 8 applies. These events have also provoked consideration concerning the Security Council’s legal powers to extend the ICC’s jurisdiction to certain crimes involving chemical weapons that would otherwise be beyond its subject matter jurisdiction. These questions are considered in this Note.

During the Conference on the Limitation of Armament at Washington nearly two years ago a resolution was passed establishing a “Commission of Jurists to consider amendment of the laws of war” covering the use of new agencies of warfare.

The framers of the American Constitution did not anticipate or desire the conclusion of many treaties. For this reason they made the process of treaty conclusion difficult, requiring that the President act only with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, some even wishing to require adhesion of the House of Representatives or a two-thirds majority of the entire Senate.

This hope, however, has scarcely been realized. With a total of 595 treaties from its foundation to August, 1914, the United States has averaged more than four a year, and for the twentieth century fifteen a year, or a treaty ratified every three weeks. Along with the steady increase in the number of treaties concluded a year, there has been a change in their usual character. Jefferson’s warning against “entangling alliances” might be interpreted as a warning against treaties, for at that time the faithful observance of treaties commonly amounted to passive if not active alliance. Aside from definite guarantees of offensive or defensive alliance, the pious hope of “perpetual peace and amity” between the contractuaries, special privileges in war and neutrality, reciprocal favors in commerce and navigation, the termination of war, transfer of territory, fixation of boundaries, and recognition of status were the common subjects of treaty stipulation. The provisions were of a character indicating the competitive nature of international society. By mutually enjoying special privileges, the contracting states hoped to improve their political position with respect to other states of the world. Thus the carrying out of treaty provisions was ordinarily a matter for the political organs of government.

The Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945, states in Article 2 (1) that “ the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Since the outstanding characteristics of the Charter are its recognition of the actual and legal inequality of the Members of the United Nations, and its provisions empowering the Organization to take action, binding on its Members, without their unanimous consent, an understanding of the Charter will be enhanced by placing its dominant features in their conceptual and historical setting.

In the course of its fifth year, the Permanent Court of International Justice has builded a record of constructive work which may perhaps excite less interest than the records of previous years but which constitutes a substantial addition to the new foundations of international jurisprudence which the court is laying. The judges were at The Hague for two sessions: the tenth (extraordinary) session from February 2, 1926, to May 25, 1926, and the eleventh (ordinary) session from June 15, 1926, to July 31, 1926. It is notable that all of the eleven judges were present at the latter session, for the first time in the history of the court. At the extraordinary session early in the year, the court handed down its seventh judgment, and at the ordinary session during the summer, its thirteenth advisory opinion. In addition, the court undertook the very important task of revising its rules of procedure, and the experience of the past four years has been embodied in the new Rules of Court which became effective as from July 31, 1926. Outside the chambers of the court itself, some questions have arisen which may affect its future; so that on the whole, it has been a significant year in the court's history.

The Convention on the Continental Shelf, adopted at Geneva on April 26, 1958, by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, represents the first great effort to determine by an act of international legislation the scope of the continental shelf doctrine in international law. The fact that the Convention was finally approved by a vote of 57 to three, with only eight abstentions, is evidence both that a need for rules on the subject was generally felt and that the rules embodied in the Convention were considered on the whole acceptable.

The nineteenth century was for Ethiopia a century of inner consolidation. During that time the Ethiopian rulers step by step restored the power accredited to their dynasty which they had lost in endless feuds during the eighteenth century. On the coast the Porte claimed suzerainty over the strip down to the Strait of Bab el Mandeb and even Zeila. Turkish occupation was actual only at Massawa; from there Turkey controlled the commerce with north Ethiopia; in most other places Turkish control was nominal. The chiefs of the Danakil coastal tribes were practically independent. When, however, about the year 1839, the French Compagnie Nanto-Bordelaise bought from the local Danakil chiefs the village of Edd, which today belongs to Italian Eritrea, with a district extending three leagues inland, the Porte protested, and the French Government repudiated the purchase. But the rights of the purchasers to the soil were not questioned, and a French company still claimed them in 1862.

In 2005, the International Court of Justice issued three judgments.l In February, the Court upheld an objection to its jurisdiction in Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany). In July, a chamber of the Court issued its judgment on the merits in Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger). In December, the full Court issued its judgment on the merits in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda).

During the progress of the world war there came to thoughtful men everywhere the deepening conviction that fundamental among the causes of modern warfare are the policies that lead to colonial rivalry and the imperialistic exploitation of undeveloped regions and backward peoples.

All belligerent parties looked forward to the peace settlement as an occasion for the satisfaction of territorial ambitions and the settlement of war damage claims in terms of colonial acquisitions. To humanitarians in all nations the peace settlement seemed to offer a precarious but possible occasion for the settlement of colonial claims upon terms of justice and in the interest of the hitherto little regarded native peoples.

On December 9, 1988, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, without a vote, a “Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.” The preparation of this text was started in 1976 within the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the Commission on Human Rights. On the basis of a project prepared by Mr. Erik Nettel of Austria, the Sub-Commission approved a Draft Body of Principles in 1978. After being submitted to the General Assembly’s Third Committee, it was referred to a working group, which considered it in 1980 but could not complete its task. The item was then moved to the Sixth Committee, which entrusted it to an open-ended working group. This working group met during every session of the General Assembly from 1981 until 1988, and slowly progressed toward the completion of its task.

The announcement on November 4, 1929, that Great Britain intended to recommend Iraq for admission to membership in the League of Nations in 1932 has presented some interesting constitutional questions to the Permanent Mandates Commission, as well as the unusual spectacle of a great Power seeking to convince a skeptical outside body that its dependency is ripe for independence. Heretofore, dependencies that wanted independence have usually had to fight for it, as did the United States, the Latin American States, Belgium, and the various successors to the Ottoman, Romanoff and Hapsburg Empires. It is true, Colombia and Panama, Sweden and Norway, Denmark and Iceland have separated without war but with some heartburnings. British statesmen experienced in the loss of colonies by violence, talked freely in the mid-nineteenth century of the natural destiny of colonies to drop from the mother tree when ripe, and in the twentieth century they have acquiesced in a status of virtual independence for the dominions, soon to include India. They have rationalized this “ climbing process” as one “ common to all the communities which form part of the Empire. Each of them, whether the population is predominantly white or predominantly colored, is gradually, as it develops in strength and capacity, passing upward from the stage in which the community is wholly subject to control exercised from London to that in which the measure of control diminishes, and so on to that in which the control has ceased entirely.”But this was after the event. Before it, history records military episodes in Ireland, India, South Africa, and even Canada.

The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (the Convention), adopted on August 23, 1978, by the United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, contains five articles, numbered 41 to 45, forming part VI of the Convention, entitled “Settlement of Disputes.” As this title implies, those articles set forth methods and procedures to be applied for settling disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention. They are complemented by an annex to the Convention, which specifies the modalities of a conciliation procedure that is the subject of Article 42.