If the neutrality of Chile be considered with calm judgment in the light of historical reality, it offers no occasion for surprise during the period that extended from the breaking out of the European War until the date at which the United States entered it as a belligerent, that is, from August, 1914, until April, 1917. It is in no wise surprising, I say, since the unneutrality of Chile would be inconceivable at that stage of the war, owing to the circumstances that existed at the time in our hemisphere. Beginning with the latter date, the neutrality of Chile, if, indeed, much less onerous, stands out as a more significant fact, because several of the Latin-American countries “theoretically” adopted the attitude of the United States by declaring war upon the German Empire, while another group of these countries confined itself to breaking off diplomatic relations with that Power. Of the five republics that maintained their neutrality until the end, Chile was, without doubt, the one that had to show greater zeal to keep within the law and to retain the confidence that had always been reposed in her by the most powerful nations of the world.

I have said that the neutrality of Chile, up to April 6, 1917, does not constitute a strange historical phenomenon, because the entire American continent decided frankly in favor of neutrality from the breaking out of the war. No authority upon international law could condemn this attitude by germane arguments, nor would all the eloquence of sentiment possess weight against it.

Gaius and Charlemagne and President Truman seem to be working hand in hand across the centuries to bring about coördination of European inland waterways. Under the law of the Roman Empire such waterways, when constituting or crossing international boundaries, were free to use by all nations within the Empire. Since 1815, as we shall presently see, there have been successive organized attempts, mostly unsuccessful, to revive and apply this principle of freedom of navigation of the Roman Law on the Rhine, the Danube, and elsewhere. The United States, through President Truman, at the July–August Berlin (Potsdam) conference of the victorious allies, proposed that navigation over the internal waterways of Continental Europe be free to all nations under international control. More recently, in the latter weeks of 1945, grave obstacles and problems threaten the realization of the Truman proposal. The writer believes that if we visualize clearly the mechanism and workings of an international body vested with control of inland river navigation, we can better appraise the merits of that proposal.

On April 8, 1965, the representatives of the six member states (Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands) of the European Communities signed the “Treaty Establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities.” The treaty’s principal object is to replace the executive bodies of the three Communities, i.e., the Commissions of the European Economic Community (E.E.C.) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (E.C.S.C.) by a single European Commission. At the same time, the Councils of Ministers of these three Communities are to be merged into one Council. This Merger Treaty is intended to be the first step toward the ultimate merger of the E.C.S.C, instituted by the Treaty of Paris of April 18, 1951, and the E.E.C. and EURATOM, instituted by the Eome Treaties of March 25, 1957.

The Permanent Court of International Justice, in two of the most exhaustive judgments it has thus far rendered, has recently decided, mainly against the claimant, the bitterly contested case of Mavrommatis (Greece) v. Great Britain (Judgments No. 2 and No. 5). It took two hearings and two decisions to dispose of the case, the first (August 30, 1924) on the question of the court's jurisdiction, asserted by a majority of seven judges to five, and the second (March 6, 1925) on the merits. The majority in favor of the jurisdiction were Judges Loder, Weiss, Nyholm, Altamira, Anzilotti, Huber, and the Greek national judge, Caloyanni. The dissenting judges, each of whom prepared a separate opinion, were Judges Finlay, Moore, de Bustamante, Oda and Pessoa. Under the court's practice, it is not possible to tell which judge or judges wrote the majority opinion; there is some evidence that several judges participated in drafting it. The second judgment practically dismissing the claim on the merits, was nearly unanimous, only Judge Altamira dissenting.

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods was adopted on April 10, 1980. The chief reason for its adoption was that the prior Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (ULIS) and its supplementary Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (ULF) had not received widespread support.

On September 3, 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent to Congress a message in which he stated, in part:

Aguas Del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3. Jurisdiction. 20 ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal 450 (2005).

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, October 21, 2005.

In Aguas del Tunari v. Republic of Bolivia, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under the Netherlands-Bolivia bilateral investment treaty (BIT) over a claim against Bolivia brought by a Bolivian company owned primarily by two companies— one American and one Spanish—through Dutch intermediaries. The tribunal found that the Dutch intermediaries “controlled” the Bolivian company and that jurisdiction existed notwithstanding that the dispute related to a concession agreement with a choice-of-forum clause designating Bolivian courts.

The origin of the dispute lay in Bolivia's attempt in the late 1990s to privatize the water service in Cochabamba, its third largest city. In September 1999, Bolivia awarded a forty-year concession agreement to a Bolivian company, Aguas del Tunari, S.A. (AdT), for the exclusive provision of water services in the city.

The first article of the American treaty with China, June 18, 1858, reads:

The July 1982 issue of this Journal (pp. 532-54) published an article written by Professor Mohamed ElBaradei, The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and Access to the GulfofAqaba: A New Legal Regime, in which he gives a contextual interpretation and evaluation of the regime laid down by Article V(2) of the Treaty of Peace. Article V(2) reads: