In a proceeding that challenged the domestic content requirements (DCRs) of India's solar energy program, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) upheld the panel determination that the Indian government's measures violated its international obligations. The decision offers new insights into certain exceptions for environmental policies under the multilateral trading system and elaborates on the relevance of other international legal regimes to the compliance issue under WTO law. Further, it has the potential to increase export opportunities of many countries in the Indian renewable energy market.

The recent article by Dr. Scott under this title in the October, 1907, issue of this JOURNAL is a most able presentation of the view that the rules which govern the relations of states to one another are as properly to be termed laws as are the legislative declarations of national law-making bodies.

When no distinction was made in theory and practice between the status of private property of the enemy upon land and upon sea it necessarily followed that such property was liable to seizure and confiscation wherever found.

The return of maritime warfare in the Atlantic and Pacific, and the proclamation by the United States of its neutrality in the existing state of war, raise anew important questions of law concerning the Panama Canal. While there is an abundant literature on the history of the Canal project, on the Panama Revolution, the Tolls controversy, the economic importance of the Canal and the cost of its defense, little has been written on the legal status of the Canal as a completed and operating institution. No complete survey of the treaties, laws, executive orders, regulations, agreements, opinions and decisions, and diplomatic correspondence seems to exist. Only by a laborious consultation of source materials, not all of which are easily accessible, can a comprehensive picture of the legal situation be pieced together. It is hoped that the treatment which follows may help to fill this lacuna.

Defendants, citizens of the United Kingdom, Bermuda, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States, were operators of a sailing vessel on the high seas that was registered in the United Kingdom and flying the UK flag. Defendants were indicted for possession of several tons of marijuana, with intent to distribute, following a search and seizure of their vessel by the United States Coast Guard. Initially, the court granted defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing. However, upon further consideration, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (per Legge, J.) held: that the court had proper jurisdiction, and that defendants’ motions to suppress evidence obtained from the boarding, search and seizure of the vessel and to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be denied.

The proclamation of the President of the United States on September 28, 1945, declaring as a matter of policy that the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf appertain to the United States, proves to have offered a marketable concept in the marts of international law. Six States have followed the example in the last three years, with certain notable modifications of their own, and it appears not improbable that the principle thus put forward may gain increasing acceptance in international practice. It seems appropriate therefore briefly to review various developments with respect to jurisdiction over the continental shelf, the epicontinental sea, and their resources.