At the beginning of the present war the belligerents, of course, set up prize courts. Germany enacted a new Prize Law Code and a new Prize Court Code. But no belligerent, with the exception of Great Britain, has yet published reports of prize cases. True, compared with the enormous amount of prize cases during the war of 1914–1918 in Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy, the number of British prize cases so far reported is comparatively very small. Yet it seems important to investigate these cases to which the science of international law has paid no attention up to now. It is proposed to give here a systematic study of these prize cases, from the points of view of substantive and formal prize law, and of the law of prize procedure.

While I agree with the action taken by the Court and consider that, in view of the unsatisfactory and contradictory provisions of the special agreement by which the parties have submitted this case to the Court, it is perhaps the only course by which the Court could, under its Statute, aid the parties in arriving at a wholly satisfactory solution of their dispute, nevertheless, in view of certain language used in the order, which might be the source of doubt as to the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court and might serve as a basis of argument that it is within the competence of this Court, with the consent of the parties, to take jurisdiction of and decide purely political questions upon considerations of expediency without regard to the legal rights of the parties, I feel it incumbent upon me to make the following observations:

In my opinion the question of the competence of this Court which has been raised by the present case and a direct decision of which the Court has avoided, for the moment at least, by the making of the present order, is, from the point of view of the future of this Court and the development of the judicial settlement of international disputes, by far the most important question which has ever been brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice. I feel, therefore, that I would be derelict in my duty if I allowed the question to be passed over in silence or left any doubt as to my opinion in regard thereto.

Although diplomatic representatives enjoy certain immunities in the countries to which they are accredited, they are not free to disregard the laws of the state receiving them. When a diplomatic representative breaks the local law, the ordinary procedure and the usual sanctions cannot always be applied. However, the individual or the state injured by infraction of the law by the diplomatic representative is protected by a number of sanctions and means of applying them. The purpose of this study is to examine their effectiveness.

In its reply to the identical notes sent by Secretary of State James F. Byrnes on February 9, 1946, to the Chinese and Soviet Governments concerning the disposition of Japanese external assets, the Government of China stated that the claim of the Soviet Government “that all Japanese enterprises in the Chinese Northeastern Provinces which had rendered services to the Japanese Army were regarded by the Soviet Union as war booty of Soviet forces” is considered by the Chinese Government “as far exceeding the scope of war booty as generally recognized by international law and international usage.”

A composite picture of the status of the Papacy in international law as described by the text-book writers down to 1929 has notably clear outlines. From the 8th century until 1870, the Pope, in addition to his spiritual authority as supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church, had, except for brief intervals, the rights of temporal sovereignty as head of a state. In that year Rome was occupied on September 20 by an Italian army, the occupation was ratified by popular vote, and the city made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy by the Italian Parliament on October 2; on October 9 it was annexed by royal decree, which was confirmed by law of December 31; in consequenceof which the Papal States disappeared and the temporal power of the Popewas ended. On May 13, 1871, the Italian Parliament enacted the Law of Guarantees which regulated the status of the Pope, so far as Italy was concerned, and purported to extend to him all necessary safeguards for the freeexercise throughout the world of his spiritual authority. This law securedto him personal inviolability and exemption from criminal liability, thoughhe remained subject to the civil courts of Italy, and it bestowed or recognized his enjoyment of certain rights and privileges belonging in other cases to temporal sovereigns, such as maintaining an armed force, freedom of correspondence and sending and receiving representatives to and from states beyond Italy. As a municipal statute, the Law of Guarantees could conferno international status upon the Pope, and although it might have been made the basis of treaty agreement between Italy and any Catholic or other Power, it was, so far as known, never so treated, and therefore remained legallyalways capable of change by Italy alone. The Popes never formally acceptedthe provisions of this law nor the endowment granted by it, and in protest against the events of 1870 they objected to any Catholic sovereignvisiting the King of Italy, and remained after their election perpetually with in the Vatican without emerging on to other Italian soil. The Poperetained the right to make with sovereign states concordats concerningecclesiastical affairs, as before his loss of temporal power; and continued toexercise the rights of active and passive legation as assured by the Law of Guarantees. The Papal household subsisted on food and water whose deprivation would have threatened life itself had Italy joined for a month inthe policy of non-intercourse adopted for the Pope personally. The statusof the Pope in international law was abnormal and unique.

The course of the development and modification of exterritoriality in Siam is so little known that an account of it may not be without interest to students of international law.

The 34th session of the international Law Commission was held in Geneva from May 3 to July 23, 1982, and was chaired by the Commission’s dean, Professor Paul Reuter of France. This was the first meeting of the Commission in its new and enlarged composition. Its composition was new in the sense that all of its members were beginning a new 5-year term of office, the term of the former Commission having expired at the end of 1981. It was enlarged as a result of a decision taken by the General Assembly at its session in the fall of 1981 to expand the membership of the ILC from 25 to 34.

There are no established definitions in law for describing the upper regions of the atmosphere or the space beyond the atmosphere. The legal dictionaries and the law encyclopedias do not even refer to the stratosphere or the areas above.