It is a truism that the science of law proper – the science dealing with the United States or the law of Great Britain, one finds the whole science based on the fact of the existence of a political society known as the United States or Great Britain, which formulates, applies and enforces the law which governs these nations in their internal relations. When one enters upon the study of what is called international law, one finds himself expected to accept as a fundamental proposition that there is no political society which formulates, applies and enforces the law which he is told governs all nations in their external relations, and that this law is formulated, applied and enforced among or between the nations. This difference in fundamentals leads to corresponding differences in the derivative notions. Practitioners of law proper take little or no interest in what is called international law. From their point of view, that which is called international law is only a collection of the rules of a highly interesting game, success in which depends largely upon “face ” and personality; nor can it be denied that there is much to justify this opinion. Students of law reflect the attitude of mind of the practitioner, and the great majority of students end their legal education when they finish the courses in national domestic law, giving no consideration to the law which governs the actions and relations of the nations.

The Seventh of the Pan American Conferences was held at Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay, from the 3d to the 26th of December last, so that it was impossible to have comments upon its activities appear in the January number of the JOURNAL. The undersigned is taking advantage of this opportunity to say a word on certain phases of Pan-Americanism, and the observations, in so far as they concern treaties or conventions, will be in the order in which they appear in the Final Act.

The diplomatic protection of citizens abroad is a comparatively modern phenomenon in the evolution of the state, in constitutional and in international law. Not until the legal position of the state toward individuals, both its own citizens and aliens, and of states between themselves, had become clearly denned in modern public law, did diplomatic protection become a factor in international intercourse. A discussion of the subject therefore involves a preliminary study of three distinct legal relations, first, between the state and its own citizen; secondly, between the state and aliens resident within it; and, lastly, the relations of states among themselves with respect to their rights over and their international responsibility for delinquencies toward aliens.

As in the days of Rome and the barbarians, the activities of foreigners are still hampered in many ways. The purpose of this article is to examine certain phases of the modern practice in the law of the alien, and to discover, if possible, the present trend, especially in the light of the abortive Paris Conference of 1929 on the Treatment of Foreigners. 2

Paragraph 16 of Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) reaffirmed that “Iraq … is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, … or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.” This resolution and Security Council Resolution 692 (May 20, 1991) established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) to administer a system to provide compensation for claims for which Iraq is liable under paragraph 16. The Commission has a Governing Council, composed of the members of the Security Council; panels of commissioners, appointed from time to time to review particular groups of claims; and a secretariat headed by an Executive Secretary. The Commission’s Governing Council first met in Geneva in July 1991 and in the first year of its existence adopted decisional criteria for six categories of claims: Category “A” — claims of individuals for fixed amounts for departure from Iraq or Kuwait; Category “B” — claims of individuals for fixed amounts for death or serious personal injury; Category “C” —claims of individuals for amounts up to $100,000; Category “D” —claims of individuals for amounts above $100,000; Category “E” —claims of corporations; and Category “F” — claims of governments and international organizations.

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.

The American national who suffered war damage to property on territory of an enemy country during World War II is encouraged by the progress already made on the peace treaties to believe that the duty to provide compensation for his damage will be imposed directly upon the government of the enemy country. Upon the coming into force of the peace treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Roumania, and Finland, each of those countries will be obliged to provide for damage to property of United Nations nationals in its territory compensation equal to two-thirds of the sum necessary to purchase similar property or to make good the loss suffered. If a similar pattern is followed when the treaties with Germany, Austria, and Japan are written each of those countries will also be obliged to provide compensation for damage to property of United Nations nationals on its territory.

The United States is more than fifteen years into a fight against terrorism that shows no sign of abating and, with the change in administration, appears to be intensifying. Other Western democracies that have historically been uneasy about U.S. counterterrorism policies have, in recent years, shifted toward those policies. And armed nonstate groups continue to commit large-scale acts of violence in multiple distinct theaters. The legal issues that these situations present are not entirely new, but neither are they going away. Recent publications, like the three works under review, thus provide useful opportunities to reflect on and refine our thinking on them.

A brief description of Belgium’s geography and history is essential to make clear how the present tangled legal situation arose respecting Belgium’s neutrality since its violation in 1914. Belgium is one of those nations, like Palestine and Luxemburg, which, unfortunately for their tranquillity, lie across the easiest route between two powerful states. Her history is largely the story of the passage of armies up and down the Meuse, between France and Germany. The names of Rocroi, Sedan, Namur and Liege tell the story of the importance of this highway.