The recent report on Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, together with the work of Mr. Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, and the invaluable Digest of International Law, by Prof. John Bassett Moore, render easily accessible and readily comprehensible the principles of the American law with reference to the status of our citizens and of aliens for the time being within our territorial limits. At the same time, however, these publications make more evident the fact that, in many instances, the conflicting claims of two or more states upon the same individual are settled rather by mutual concessions than upon principle; that legal and political rights are asserted, but with an understanding, more or less explicit, that under given circumstances they will not be exercised. Thus, by a legislative act, legally binding upon our executive and judicial officers, we have declared the right of the individual to expatriate himself to be an absolute and indefeasible one, and that the naturalized American citizen is to have the same rights and is to receive the same protection as the native-born citizen, whether or not the state of original allegiance consents to the expatriation thus involved. In practice, this law, thus formally declared, has never been rigidly enforced, for the very good reason that to attempt to do so would lead to constant and serious international difficulties.

The question whether the United States Government should pay ex gratia compensation to the survivors of those killed in the accidental destruction of Iranian Airlines Flight No. 655 raises some important issues of law and policy. In the following comments, I have attempted to provide a brief overview of the issues involved. …

The recent trial in Pretoria of thirty-seven South West Africans on charges of “participation in terroristic activities” focused international attention yet again on the mandated territory of South West Africa. The trial, conviction and sentencing of the accused evoked protest and condemnation from the United Nations on the ground that, as a result of General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI), South Africa had lost jurisdiction over the territory and hence the competence to try the accused at all. On December 16, 1967, while the trial was in progress, the General Assembly, by 110 votes to two (Portugal and South Africa), condemned the “illegal arrest, deportation, and trial” of the accused, and on the eve of the judgment in the case on January 25, 1968, the Security Council in a unanimous resolution called upon the Government of South Africa “to discontinue forthwith this illegal trial and to release and repatriate the South West Africans concerned,” a call which was converted into a “demand” by a further unanimous resolution on March 14, 1968, after many of the accused had been sentenced to long periods of imprisonment. The South African Government, however, arguing that Resolution 2145 (XXI) was invalid and that it was fully competent in law to prosecute the accused for offenses committed in South West Africa, declined to accept these “calls” and “demands.”

When the representatives of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States met at Yalta in February, 1945, the Soviet delegation raised the question of giving separate representation in the Assembly of the United Nations to the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The United States delegation agreed to support this claim at San Francisco, but reserved the right of the United States to put in a similar claim for three votes for itself and its possessions. The Soviet delegation raised no objection to the latter claim and the British delegation agreed to support both claims. No agreement was reached at the time with respect to the question of the participation of the two Soviet Republics at the San Francisco Conference itself. When the Yalta agreement was disclosed at the end of March objections were raised in different quarters against the principle of plural votes itself and very vehemently against the secrecy attached to the agreement. In order to pour some oil on the troubled waters the Government of the United States announced that the United States would not request for itself additional votes in the General Assembly. The United States delegation was directed, however, to cast the vote of the United States in favor of the admission of the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Republics and on April 27, 1945, the San Francisco Conference unanimously invited these Republics to become initial members of the United Nations. On April 30, 1945, it permitted them to take seats at the Conference immediately. The delegates of these republics at the Conference generally voted with the Soviet delegation but in a few instances their votes diverged. One might recall in that connection that while in the early days of the League of Nations the British Dominions followed quite closely the lead of the British delegation, twenty-five years later, at San Francisco, the British delegation found the Dominions sometimes among its most bitter opponents. It is quite possible that the position of the Soviet Republics might evolve along similar lines, though it might take some time.