Though representatives of the United States participated very actively in the drafting of the Constitution of the International Labor Organization in 1919, and though the first International Labor Conference was held in Washington under the presidency of the Secretary of Labor, the Government of the United States had no part in the work of the International Labor Organization during its first fifteen years. In consequence, the United States has hitherto held aloof from one of the most significant of the modern developments of international law. Fortunately, this situation has now been changed. On August 20,1934, the United States became the fifty-ninth member of the International Labor Organization. The steps by which this result has been achieved, and the problems growing out of it, present some interesting legal questions which ought not to escape attention.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the Convention), concluded on May 23, 1969, entered into force on January 27, 1980. It thus took more than 10 years for 35 states to ratify the instrument or to accede to it. Although its entry into force may hasten ratification and accession somewhat in other states, it will probably be a very long time before a large majority of states are parties to the Convention. Therefore, international treaty practice will long be faced with the conclusion of treaties between or among states that are parties to the Convention and other states.

The governments of eleven Western countries have recently declined to accept a Soviet proposal to include an unconditional most-favored-nation clause in a draft All-European Agreement of Economic Co-operation.

The use of opium originally prevailed only among vagrants and disreputable persons, who occasionally associated together for the purpose of partaking of this substance, but since it has extended itself among the members and descendants of reputable families, students, and officers of government, many of whom are so infatuated in their attachment to the drug as to make habitual use of it.

Since shortly after the 1967 Middle East war, Israel has sought to reduce its dependence on imported oil by exploiting the resources of captured Egyptian territory. Until recently attention was centered on the Sinai’s Abu Rhodeis fields, which in 1974 were reported to be meeting 55 percent of Israel’s needs. In 1975, however, these fields were returned to Egypt as part of the second Egypt-Israel Disengagement Agreement. Previously unexploited areas of the eastern Gulf of Suez then became the subject of Israeli efforts, and by the fall of 1976 exploratory drilling was in progress off the Sinai coast. On November 25, 1977, Israel announced that this drilling had resulted in a commercial strike, and on March 29, 1978, it was reported that commercial production had begun. The question whether Israel may rightfully exploit the oil resources of the Gulf thus came sharply into focus.

In the case of Sei Fujii v. The State, the District Court of Appeals of California held that a State statute which prohibited aliens ineligible to citizenship from acquiring land within the State was “in direct conflict with the plain terms” of provisions concerning human rights in the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding upon the United States. Consequently, land granted to a Japanese in 1948 did not escheat to the State. The case involves important questions of United States constitutional law, of international law, and of legal policy.

On the issue of constitutional law the opinion follows a long and unbroken tradition that if State legislation conflicts with obligations undertaken by the United States in a treaty, the legislation will not be applied by the courts. The terms of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Constitution are unambiguous:

Most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses have been included in international commercial treaties for many centuries. They also figure prominently as standard provisions in almost any international investment agreement (IIA). Their longstanding and widespread use notwithstanding, investment law doctrine and arbitral practice continue to struggle with the clauses’ application and interpretation, in particular as regards their scope of application. What Stanley Hornbeck observed more than one hundred years ago in this Journal, that “there appear[s] constant disagreements and ever-recurring irritation over what is the meaning and what are the obligations attaching to this or that [MFN] clause,” still characterizes the practice of investment tribunals and the literature on MFN clauses in IIAs today.

Weak sub-Saharan African states use international law and its institutions to legitimate their actions and delegitimate their internal enemies. In this essay, I argue that during internal armed conflicts, African states use international criminal law to redefine the conflict as international and thereby rebrand domestic political opponents as international criminals/enemies who are a threat to the entire community. This in turn sets the stage for invoking belligerent privileges under international humanitarian law (IHL).

It can be argued that with regard to the paramount problem of the twentieth century, the establishment of effective international institutions for the achievement of peace and justice, the development of perhaps the most far-reaching significance has occurred in the judicial field.

On December 16, 1966, the General Assembly approved three agreements designed to establish a global system of enforceable treaty obligations with respect to fundamental human rights. These agreements are the second part of the “international bill of rights” proposed at the San Francisco Conference. Eighteen years separated the adoption of these agreements—the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—and the approval in 1948 of the first part of the projected United Nations program for the protection of human rights, the non-binding Universal declaration of Human Rights.

The possible presence of very large petroleum and natural gas reserves in the area beneath the North Sea is currently the subject of intense investigation. If confirmed, as seems likely in at least some localities, this occurrence will raise legal problems of considerable interest and complexity. For the North Sea is not merely an oilfield covered by water: for centuries it has been one of the world's major fishery regions and the avenue to and from the world's busiest seaports. Thus all three of the present principal uses of the sea—fishing, navigation, and the exploitation of submarine resources—promise to meet for the first time on a large scale in an area where all are of major importance. The process of reconciling the various interests at stake will provide the first thoroughgoing test of the adequacy and acceptability of the general principles laid down in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and should add greatly to the practice and precedents available in this developing branch of the law. In the present article an attempt is made to review some of the geographical and economic considerations involved in the North Sea situation, to note some of the technical and legal developments that have already taken place, and to consider these elements in the light of the various interests and legal principles concerned.