It is seemingly easier to evoke aggression than to dispel it, and easier to commit aggression than to define it. What has been universally condemned as “the gravest of all crimes against peace and security throughout the world ” has yet to be consensually particularized. On the eve of its hundredth meeting, the U.N. Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression, the fourth United Nations body to deal with the topic since 1952, adjourned without having carried out its instructions. It did conclude by irresolute acclamation that progress had been made and that it should continue its work in 1973. Despite the semblance of unanimity, both points were not free from doubt. Defining aggression has perplexed legal scholars for nearly half a century. Those who are dedicated to the rule of law and to a rational system of conflict management may wish to consider some of the current disputations aS well as the expectations and requirements of the days or years to come.

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. is an invitation to reassess the impact of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) upon public debt litigation. In contrast with other activities of foreign states, which have been the object of extensive and continuing litigation, barely two dozen cases involving public debt disputes have been reported since the FSIA took effect. Whether this situation is attributable to the care with which transnational loan documents are usually drafted or to some other reasons, including possibly the contemporary tendency to rely on debt rescheduling as a means of remedying difficult situations, is an interesting matter of speculation. Whatever the explanation for the relatively limited number of public debt cases, Weltover can be expected to have a decisive impact upon future litigation.

Protection of the physical environment of man is one of the most elemental and pressing problems of today’s world. In the past dozen years or so numerous dramatic and disastrous events have focused domestic and international attention on the growing danger of environmental deterioration and provided stimulus for national and international action to protect man against all kinds of pollution hazards. Among these environmental hazards marine pollution is perhaps the most dangerous in the long run. The sea, which covers about 70 percent of the planet, plays a vital role in maintaining the fundamental biological and ecological balance by supplying much of the oxygen on which life ultimately depends.

The Bosnia Proximity Peace Talks at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, took place from November 1 to 21, 1995, and ended with the initialing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (GFA) and several of the annexed or related instruments by representatives of the principal states parties to the conflict in Bosnia: the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The initialing was witnessed by representatives of the European Union and the five states members of the Contact Group on Bosnia. In addition, all of the twelve instruments annexed to the GFA were also initialed or otherwise endorsed on behalf of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. The GFA and these instruments were formally signed in Paris on December 14, and thereby immediately entered into force.

When the representatives of thirteen major OECD oil-importing countries met in Washington, D.C. in February 1974 to discuss cooperation in the energy field in order to meet the challenge posed by the OAPEC oil embargo, the outlook for successful negotiations was far from bright.

At first blush, “comparative international law” might sound like an oxymoron. In principle, international law—at least when it arises from multilateral treaties or general custom—applies equally to all parties or states. As a result, international lawyers often resist emphasizing local, national, or regional approaches due to the field’s aspirations to universality and uniformity. Comparativists, meanwhile, frequently overlook the potential to apply comparative law insights to international law on the basis that “rules which are avowedly universal in character do not lend themselves to comparison.”

At first sight, the terms “sovereignty” and “international co-operation” as bracketed together in the title, may seem to imply the contrast, if not conflict, between an individual state's sovereign self-determination and the co-operation, for mutual benefits derived therefrom, between several sovereign states.

The questions which will be examined in this paper relate to the provisions of Articles 11 to 15, contained in Part II, Section I ( “Conclusion of Treaties” ) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. These articles deal with “the means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty” (as enumerated in Art. 11): signature (Art. 12), exchange of instruments constituting a treaty (Art. 13), ratification, acceptance, or approval (Art. 14) and accession (Art. 15).

When the Court began the revision of its rules of procedure in 1967, the approach then followed was to attempt a systematic revision of the Rules in their entirety and as an integrated whole. However, in 1972, the Cour suspended the full-scale and complete revision it had initiated and decided instead simply to amend certain articles of the existing Rules of Court.

In the Memorandum signed at Moscow, on April 15, 1955,1 the Austrian and Soviet Delegations came to an agreement binding the Austrian Delegation to carry out the following decisions and measures:

1. Referring to the declaration made at the conference of Berlin in 1954 neither to join a military alliance nor to allow foreign military bases in its territory, the Austrian Government will make a declaration in a form which will obligate Austria internationally to practice in perpetuity a neutrality of the type maintained by Switzerland.

2. After having ratified the State Treaty, the Austrian Government will submit this declaration to the Austrian Parliament for confirmation according to the Austrian Federal Constitution.

3. The Austrian Government will take all suitable steps to obtain international recognition of this declaration.

4. The Austrian Government will welcome a guaranty by the four Powers of the independence and territorial integrity of Austria.

5. The Austrian Government will seek to obtain from the governments of France, Great Britain, and the United States of America such a guaranty.

In his address to the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party on October 17, 1961, Premier Khrushchev assured his listeners that the principles of peaceful co-existence, whose source he attributed to Lenin, had “always been the central feature of Soviet foreign policy”.

The governments-in-exile present new problems created by the special circumstances of this war. During World War I, belligerent occupation played an important rôle. Disregarding smaller incidents, the following occupations may be mentioned: that of Belgium and parts of France by German troops; parts of White Russia by Austro-Hungarian troops; of Serbia and Macedonia by German, Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian troops; of Rumania by German, Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian troops; of parts of Italy by Austro-Hungarian and German troops; of parts of Austria by Russian troops; of parts of Alsace-Lorraine by French troops; and of Palestine by British troops. As a result of the invasion of its territories the Belgian Government exercised its functions in Sainte-Adresse, France, and the Serbian Government in Corfu, Greece, but it is not known that the activity of these sovereignties-in-exile has raised any significant legal problems. Since 1940 an increasing number of governments have been forced to flee their homelands in the face of hostile armed forces and have been invited by the British Government to establish themselves in the United Kingdom. We have now a “Miniature Europe” in London. There are at present eight foreign governments in England: Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia.

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a security wall on occupied Palestinian territory, declaring that the wall was in violation of international law. The advisory opinion also indicated that Israel should forthwith cease construction of the wall, dismantle what had been so far constructed, and make reparations to the Palestinians for all damages caused by the project. On July 20, 2004, at the Tenth Emergency Session of the General Assembly, Resolution ES-10/15 was adopted by a vote of 150 in favor, 6 opposed, and 10 abstentions, demanding that Israel comply with the legal obligations as specified by the advisory opinion.

The United Nations action in the Congo, instituted by the Security Council on July 14, 1960, has been described by the Secretary General as “the biggest single effort under United Nations colours organized and directed by the United Nations itself.” It was an emergency action, undertaken almost instantaneously and carried out in an atmosphere of crisis and political tension. This was not a setting propitious to juridical deliberation; yet it cannot be said that legal considerations were disregarded. At the very outset, the Secretary General drew attention to the basic considerations of law and principle that should govern United Nations operations. As the situation in the Congo grew more complicated and divergent views emerged as to the propriety of the United Nations action, Member Governments as well as the Secretary General sought guidance and support in the prescriptions of the Charter and the rules of law that have evolved through United Nations practice. Faced with the responsibility of interpreting a general mandate of the Security Council in circumstances that had not been envisaged, the Secretary General considered it essential to refer to legal precepts whenever they could furnish guidance; only in this way could he maintain the requisite impartiality and yet take action under his mandate that might be opposed by one or the other contending side. Thus, in regard to each of the several controversial issues that arose, the Secretary General presented the legal basis for his actions, not merely in terms of the broad principles of the Charter, but more specifically, when necessary, in terms of the applicable rules and precepts adopted by United Nations organs, whether expressly in their resolutions or impliedly in their practice. The function of law in United Nations diplomacy has rarely been more clearly demonstrated.

United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products.

World Trade Organization, Appellate Body, October 12, 1998.

In May 1996, the United States effectively prohibited imports of shrimp and shrimp products from all countries that do not require commercial shrimp trawlers to use turtle-excluder devices (TEDs) to permit endangered species of sea turtles to escape from trawling nets to avoid drowning. In January 1997, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand requested that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to determine whether this import ban, among other things, violates the prohibition on quantitative restrictions in Article XI of GATT (1994). The United States maintained that its import ban was permitted under the exceptions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT Article XX. Four turtle species that migrate in and out of waters subject to the complaining parties’ jurisdiction are listed as endangered under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and are covered by the relevant U.S. regulation.

Having reviewed in the preceding Notes the characteristics and qualities of the sovereignty which finds expression in a state, it is proposed to consider now the more extensive type of sovereignty which affects politically the entire human race and territorially the whole earth, and to which reference was made in the Introductory Note. The reason for considering the lesser form first has been stated, and the soundness of that reason will become more apparent in the course of the succeeding argument.