The article on “Neutralization” in the April number of the American Journal of International Law, written by a prominent member of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, seems to furnish additional evidence of the change of mind which has occurred in recent years among the advocates of the policy of antiimperialism.

The building of the Panama Canal has not been a one man’s work by any means. In its inception the preparation of the field, the elimination of impossible routes, and in the actual construction work, it has drawn forth some of the best brains of the country.

Noted engineers from civil life have had an important influence in determining the locality best suited for the purpose, and also in the plans adopted for building the canal; and the names of these men will go down in history as a part of its constructive force. But as the principal object of building the canal was to augment means for the national defence, it was eminently proper that the Army and Navy of the United States should have paramount influence in its establishment. For nearly forty years naval men have been engaged in surveying different parts of Central America and the Isthmus of Panama to find a practical route which should offer the fewest obstacles in cutting a channel between the two oceans. Finally, by a process of elimination, which brought the problem to a choice between the Nicaragua and Panama routes, the construction of a canal was actually begun by an American company on the Nicaragua line, and the work of construction put in the charge of naval officers.

On September 26, 1991, the International Court of Justice issued an Order recording the discontinuance by Nicaragua of the proceedings in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua and the removal of the case from the Court’s list. Nicaragua had expressed its wish to discontinue the proceedings against the United States in a letter to the Court of September 12, 1991, in which it cited agreements between the two countries “aimed at enhancing Nicaragua’s economic, commercial and technical development to the maximum extent possible.”

In this study of India’s recognition policy the cases of China, Israel, Spain, and Vietnam have been singled out. The reason for selecting these four cases is that they have been a subject of controversy either in India or in the world outside India. It is hoped that the cases might afford a fairly good glimpse of India’s general policy of recognition. The plan is to discuss these cases separately in the general context of India’s relationship with each of these countries, a method that is more likely than any other to help the reader appreciate her policy. Toward the end of the paper a brief statement of general principles of India’s policy is given by way of conclusion.