In the commentary on their monumental collection of lump sum compensation treaties, Lillich and Weston regret the lack of information concerning the negotiation of these agreements as well as the lack of relevant information concerning the distribution of the lump sums received. The present article endeavors to remedy this lack of information at least in regard to the Austrian practice that has come to the attention of the author.

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-second session from May 1 to July 20, 1990, under the Chairmanship of Professor Shi Jiuyong. In the context of its work on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the Commission considered the establishment of an international criminal court and adopted three articles of the code. Also at the forty-second session, the Commission adopted six articles on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses and discussed reports on state responsibility, relations between states and international organizations, international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law and jurisdictional immunities of states and their property.

The unsolved problems arising from the foreign settlements and concessions in China are of such a nature as to make a study of the former foreign settlements in neighboring Korea a timely contribution to the literature on the general subject. The very contrasts which the settlements in Korea present to those in China serve to clarify the problems in the latter country.

Elsewhere in this issue the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea is fully described, and it is unnecessary here to repeat the facts which have been stated by Mr. Arthur H. Dean and Miss Marjorie M. Whiteman. This comment concerns itself with the methods and procedures which were utilized in what was distinctly an exercise in international law-making.

Human shields were prominent in the 2016 military campaign seeking to recapture Mosul from the hands of ISIS militants. On October 24, 2016, Pope Francis expressed his concern over the use of over two hundred boys and men as human shields in the Iraqi city. In an election rally the following day, Donald Trump decried the enemy's use of “human shields all over the place,” while the New York Times reported that the Islamic State is driving hundreds of civilians into Mosul, using them as human shields. A few days later, the United Nations disseminated a press release, warning that ISIS militants are using “tens of thousands” as human shields, thus casting massive numbers of Iraqi civilians as weapons of war.

As a candidate, Donald Trump made clear that, if elected, he would “dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” Nonetheless, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) remained in place throughout 2017, and all four International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that year verified Iran's compliance with its nuclear commitments under it. On January 12, 2018, President Trump warned that he would withdraw from the JCPOA by mid-May unless he “secure[d] our European allies’ agreement to fix [its] terrible flaws.” No such agreement materialized and, on May 8, Trump announced his decision to withdraw. He also ordered the reimposition of robust primary and secondary sanctions that had been previously waived pursuant to the JCPOA.

The state traders of Eastern Europe are arguing that the principle of equality of states enshrined in the United Nations Charter must be extended to international commercial intercourse to prevent discrimination. This was the theme of the opening session of a recent conference of scholars gathered in Rome to consider the impact of state trading upon the law governing commercial relations of states.

In a reversal of decades of U.S. foreign policy, on March 25, 2019, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, a strategic piece of territory captured by Israel from Syria during the Six-Day War in 1967. This move, which generated international criticism, is the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration that advance the interests of the Israeli government.

The International Court of Justice rendered four judgments in 2012: on February 3, a ruling on the merits in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening), finding that Italy had violated its obligations under customary international law and requiring Italy to ensure that the decisions of its judicial authorities that infringed Germany’s immunities would cease to have effect; on June 19, a ruling on the compensation owed by the respondent in Diallo (Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), awarding Guinea $85,000 for non material injury to Diallo and $10,000 for material injury to his personal property;on July 20, a ruling on jurisdiction, admissibility, and the merits in Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), finding jurisdiction and admissibility, and holding that Senegal had breached its obligations under Articles 6 and 7 the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT); and on November 19, a ruling on admissibility and the merits in Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), finding admissible one of Nicaragua’s final submissions(which Colombia had challenged as a new claim), deciding that Colombia has sovereignty over a number of contested maritime features, and establishing a single maritime boundary delimiting the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones of the two countries.

One of the unique features of Israel's legal, military, and political control over the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) has been the review by the Supreme Court of Israel of the actions and decisions of the authorities in those territories. Sitting as a High Court of Justice that has the competence to review the actions of all persons exercising public functions under law, the Court has entertained thousands of petitions relating to the legality of such varied actions as house demolitions, deportations, land requisition, entry permits, and establishment of settlements. There can be little doubt that the very existence of judicial review has had a restraining effect on the authorities. While the Court has not ruled against the government that often, and has provided legitimization for acts of dubious legality, such as punitive house demolitions and deportations, it has handed down some important rulings on questions of principle. Furthermore, in the shadow of the Court, many petitions have been settled without a court ruling, allowing for a full or partial remedy for the Palestinian petitioner.