In July 2015, Iran, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, and the European Union adopted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Pursuant to that agreement, Iran committed to limiting the scope and content of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from various nuclear-related sanctions imposed by the other signatories. By law, the U.S. State Department is required to certify Iran's compliance with the agreement every ninety days. The Trump administration first certified Iran's compliance with the agreement in April 2017, albeit reluctantly. In its first certification, the Trump administration expressed ongoing concern about Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, and repeated previous criticism of the JCPOA as “fail[ing] to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran.”

“A trust for mankind” is what President Cleveland in a message termed such an enterprise as the Panama Canal. The question just now is whether such a trust is administered properly by giving to vessels engaged in the coasting trade of the United States a total exemption from tolls. It should be noticed that the question is not whether exemption may be given to war ships and other ships of the government, but whether it may be given to the ships of private owners. It should be noticed also that the question is not whether there may be a subsidy, —in other words, not whether the tolls of such vessels may properly be paid out of the national treasury — in which case the burden would be bome by all residents of the United States through the internal revenue, the tariff, and other taxes, and the benefit would be enjoyed initially by the treasury of the Panama Canal and eventually by all persons whom the canal may serve. No, the question is whether, in the words of the Panama Canal Act of 1912, “no tolls shall be levied upon vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States,” — with the almost inevitable result that the tolls exacted from other vessels will thus be made heavier than they otherwise would be.

The Dumbarton Oaks proposals of October 7, 1944, reflect a development of ideas concerning international political and judicial organization in which the Section of International and Comparative Law of the American Bar Association has played a significant part. Its recommendations calling for the establishment of an international organization, including an improved system for settling justiciable disputes, have found their way into resolutions of the Association, composed of some thirty thousand lawyers. These resolutions preceded the joint projects of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China for an international organization for the maintenance of peace and security.

The subject of training for public service in the foreign field has recently been attracting renewed interest. Committees of the American Political Science Association and the American Economic Association have been collecting information and recommending measures in the whole field of training for public service, including the diplomatic and consular service. A comprehensive report upon the teaching of international law in American universities has been published by the Division of International Law of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. During the eighth annual meeting of the American Society of International Law a conference of teachers of international law was held, leading to the adoption of a series of sixteen resolutions on various phases of this important matter. A review of prevailing conditions and a statement of present tendencies, in view of these developments, is the purpose of this article.

In Claim 4, one of several in Case No. Bl before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, claimant, the Islamic Republic of Iran, sought to recover from the United States possession of certain military equipment that had been sold to Iran pursuant to contracts forming part of the U.S. “Foreign Military Sales” (FMS) program. In the alternative, Iran sought compensation from the United States in the amount of U.S. $143,290,948, plus interest, for the alleged replacement value of the property at issue. In this partial award, the Full Tribunal held: that the United States was not obliged to deliver the equipment and that Iran’s request for specific performance must be denied, but that the United States was still required to compensate Iran for the value of the properties as of March 26, 1981, the date the United States communicated its decision not to permit their export to Iran. The Tribunal did not make an award of damages at this stage, since neither party had provided evidence as to the value of the goods on that date. American Arbitrators Howard H. Holtzmann and Charles N. Brower each filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in pArt. The three Iranian arbitrators concurred in the award, but without filing an opinion.