The agenda that faced the International Law Commission at the first meeting of the 24th session on May 2, 1972, was a formidable one. The 23rd session in 1971, despite an extension to fourteen weeks in place of the usual ten, had been able to complete work on the draft articles on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations only by concentrating on that subject to the substantial exclusion of other topics. As a consequence the Commission had not made any real progress on the other active subjects before it, which included State Succession in respect of treaties and in respect of matters other than treaties, as divide between two Special Rapporteurs, State Responsibility, the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, and Treaty Law of International Organizations. In addition, the Commission had before it another piece of unfinished business, the review of its longterm program of work in light of the wide-ranging and thoughtful “Survey of International Law” which had been prepared in 1971 by the U.N. Secretariat at the Commission request.

On September 17, 1939, Soviet troops crossed the Soviet-Polish frontier and, advancing rapidly, soon occupied the oft-disputed territory known at various times as Eastern Poland, Eastern Galicia, or Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia.

Freedom is a relative term. It involves limitations as well as rights. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of any kind. A man is free only when his neighbors are limited. The matter is one of adjustment. As to the seas, the question is not one of “whether,” but of “how much.” It is, therefore, not surprising that there is a wide divergence of opinion as to what the term “freedom of the seas” means.

Each world Power has certain major and certain minor interests, and it is from this point of view that each fixes its definition of terms. Possibly peace will come about through an agreement on phrases, the divergences of opinion appearing only on conference; but when this country speaks of the “freedom of the seas” as a necessary peace term, it states nothing more definite than if it had said, “we want peace with honor.”

Freedom of the seas in time of peace is so generally acknowledged that it is hard to realize it was not so very long ago, as the course of history runs, that America fought for this principle. For a long time it was strenuously asserted that the cruisers of one nation might lawfully search merchant vessels of another nation in time of peace. Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco, in the early part of the last century, supported themselves by tribute levied on commerce as an alternative to piratical depredations. America’s first military excursion to Europe put a stop to this practice.

In theory, we may envisage five principal types of national arms policy,reflecting as many policy objectives:

(1) Arming to obtain the greatest possible weapons preponderance on the assumption that armed conflict is imminent. This policy of amassing military forces without regard for its effect on the other side results in an unrestrained arms race.

(2) Arming to deter. The idea of deterrence is familiar to lawyers since it figures so prominently in criminal law. According to Schelling, deterrence as a strategic concept “is concerned with influencing the choices that another party will make, and doing it by influencing his expectations of how we will behave.” Deterrence “requires that there be both conflict and common interest between the parties involved; it is as inapplicable to a situation of pure and complete antagonism of interest as it is to the case of pure and complete common interest.”

(3) Arms control. This policy envisages measures that aim at reducing the danger of war and at slowing down the arms race. Such measures may or may not involve actual restrictions upon military activities or reduction of armaments.

(4) Comprehensive, reciprocal disarmament (“general and complete disarmament”), usually seen as a scheme “embodied in a single grand treaty leading by stages from less to more drastic and radical measures.” In the final stage, the capabilities of national forces are reduced to those required for internal security only and a centralized international machinery is charged with peacekeeping.

(5) Unilateral disarmament, a concept that is self-explanatory.

I desire to take this opportunity to present some observations on the conduct of our foreign relations, not to define particular policies, but to consider method and control.

Recent developments abroad have marked the passing of the old diplomacy and the introduction of more direct and flexible methods responsive to democratic sentiment. Peace-loving democracies have not been willing to rest content with traditions and practices which failed to avert the great catastrophe of the world war. Public criticism in some instances overshot the mark and becoming emotional enjoyed the luxury of a bitter and indiscriminate condemnation. The most skilled diplomats of Europe were charged with having become “enmeshed in formulae and the jargon of diplomacy”; with having “ceased to be conscious of pregnant realities”. More potent than the critics were the exigencies due to the war which required the constant contact and direct interchanges of responsible leaders.

A recent meeting of governmental and indigenous nongovernmental experts in Geneva paved the way for more direct indigenous participation in United Nations decision making, and challenged the international community to harness multilateral development assistance for the promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights.