The doctrine of the equality of states has undergone gradual modifications, especially in more recent times—since the establishment of the League of Nations. The great Powers have probably at all times dominated the political scene, particularly during the nineteenth century. But since there existed no international organization, this predominance did not express itself in legal, but only in political terms, although it may at times have assumed a quasilegal status, such as in regard to the lawmaking provisions of various treaties of the nineteenth century, sponsored mainly by the great Powers, which acquired the character of general international law. It was only when international organizations were established, based on legal principles, that the dominant position of the great Powers received legal sanction.

The video opens with a man—now known to be Commander Al-Werfalli of the elite Libyan Special Forces team al Saiqa—throwing a quick glance over his shoulder as a black SUV rolls off camera. Cradling a gun, he saunters towards three men kneeling on a sidewalk, hands bound behind their backs, faces turned toward the wall. He raises the gun in his left hand. Without pausing, he walks methodically down the row, a bullet punctuating every other step. The men slump forward as they fall. Werfalli's first hint of emotion is visible only when he unloads multiple bullets into the final body.

Growing U.S.-China rivalry undoubtedly poses a profound threat to the multilateral trading system. In “Governing the Interface of U.S.-China Trade Relations,” Gregory Shaffer provides a highly nuanced and balanced analysis of the nature of this threat and potential solutions to address it. Yet managing trade conflict between the United States and China is, I argue, only one of the twin challenges currently facing the multilateral trading system. The other is how to rein in growing economic coercion and the arbitrary abuse of power by dominant states in the system. The United States and China have each become highly disruptive forces in the liberal trading order—not simply because of their bilateral trade relations but also, and just as importantly, because of their behavior toward the rest of the world. Both of these countries have increasingly turned away from trade multilateralism and toward aggressive unilateralism and the raw use of coercive power in their dealings with other states. It is this flagrant disregard for the rule of law on the part of the system's two dominant powers that has thrown the World Trade Organization (WTO) into crisis and ultimately poses the greatest threat to the global trade regime.

For all the attention paid to the panelists and Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Secretariat plays an overlooked and increasingly important role in the dispute settlement mechanism (DSM), including in selecting panelists, writing “issue papers” for adjudicators, providing economic expert advice, participating in internal deliberations, and drafting actual rulings. This Article argues that, given these functions, the DSM is better understood to be a sui generis administrative review process than it is a “World Trade Court.”

Multilateral treaty making, sometimes called the "international legislative process", occurs in a variety of forms and under the auspices of many international organizations. Concern that insufficient information is available about the way treaties are negotiated in different forums and that the process is haphazard led to a proposal for its review in the Sixth Committee at the 32d session of the United Nations General Assembly. Acting upon.this initiative, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 32/48, which called upon the Secretary- General to report on the techniques and procedures used in the elaboration of multilateral treaties. In order to assist in the preparation of this report, comments were requested from states, specialized agencies and other intergovernmental organizations, and the offices of the United Nations.

The announcement of the discovery of the North Pole raised in several quarters, among others the British and the Canadian Parliaments, the question whether the act of discovery gave to the United States any right of possession over the North Pole.

In searching for the answer to this question, it is necessary to ascertain the rules of the Law of Nations that govern analogous cases.

In late 1917, when the Soviet Government of Russia published various documents from the archives of the Russian Foreign Office, an insistent demand was created throughout the world for the abolition of secret diplomacy. A volume of secret treaties was published in England in 1917 and in the United States in early 1918, and the consequent reaction of public opinion greatly influenced the current statements of the aims of the belligerents. In his address of January 8, 1918, President Wilson put the subject of secret diplomacy at the forefront in the “program of the world's peace” embodied in the Fourteen Points: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always openly and in the public view.” It has since developed that these words may have been written without a knowledge of the contents of the secret treaties made by Allied Powers during the war; but they were largely responsible for the crystallization of the revulsion which followed the publication of the secret treaties into a determination that the end of the war should signalize the beginning of a new era in the conduct of international relations.

It is of advantage to every state in need of financial aid, as well as to the banks of every country having funds to invest abroad, that external governmental loans be generally regarded attractive.

After American diplomatic and consular personnel in Iran were taken hostage in that country, the United States Treasury on November 14, 1979 promulgated the Iranian Assets Control Regulations. The regulations were of a sweeping character and, among other things, prohibited the Government of Iran, Iranian governmental entities, and Iran’s central bank from transferring or withdrawing dollar-denominated deposits held with foreign branches and subsidiaries of U.S. commercial banks (as well as deposits with domestic offices) without authorization by the Treasury. Iran’s central bank, Bank Markazi Iran, instituted suits in London and Paris to obtain court orders for withdrawal of its funds, notwithstanding the U.S. “freeze.” Those suits were essentially mooted by the Algeria-United States-Iran declarations and agreements of January 19 and 20, 1981, which provided for transfer of these funds as part of the arrangement to release the American hostages held by the Iranian authorities. While the litigation in London and Paris is now inactive, it raised issues that deserve thought because they are not necessarily unique and may arise again in other situations.

The failure of the United Nations Organization to promote cooperation among its members in solving urgent international problems is a disappointing feature of the post-war world and compares unfavorably with the opening stages of the League of Nations activities, which were marked by a will to cooperation among the members and considerable success in resolving outstanding international problems. The reasons for this failure may be manifold, but it would seem that among them there is also a want of agreement on some basic concepts which are essential for the normal functioning of the Organization. As the main task of the Organization is the development of cooperation among nations according to the proclaimed principles for the achievement of the avowed aims, it appears to be indispensable that among the nations there exist a broad agreement on concepts which are not only essential for the understanding and observance of the purposes and principles of the Organization, but also of importance in determining mutual relations among the member states themselves. These would be the concepts of the state, law and sovereignty, which form the basis of every international order. It must, however, be admitted that there exists no agreement on these concepts among the members of the Organization, ft is just there that the rift between East and West manifests itself in a conspicuous way, and deprives the Organization of an essential prerequisite for successful functioning.

In December 1990, after decades of dictatorship, the Haitian people overwhelmingly elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President. Every aspect of the election was monitored by international organizations and confirmed as “free and fair.” Within months, the army, an ill-trained force of some five thousand men, seized power, expelled Aristide, and brutally suppressed popular protest. The Organization of American States and the United Nations Security Council condemned the coup and its aftermath and ordered economic sanctions to dislodge the military. The sanctions failed. On July 31, 1994, the Security Council, acknowledging the gravity of the situation and recognizing that an “exceptional response” was required, passed Resolution 940, authorizing military action. The legality and wisdom of Resolution 940 has been criticized on the following grounds.

Both the rules of sovereign immunity and the law of economic development are undergoing a noteworthy evolution. Both have inspired an abundant literature. Yet, for the most part, the literature in point approaches each subject individually and makes no attempt to consider whether the rules obtaining in one discipline might affect those of the other.

Too much has been written lately about the limited approach to human rights at Dumbarton Oaks, the struggle at the San Francisco Conference, and the great flowering of declarations, conventions, covenants and instruments to implement them in the last fifty years. Instead of adding another retelling of these more than twice-told tales, this essay tries to look at the origin of two less known contributions to the law of human rights—the broad nondiscrimination clause which added a more practical meaning to the vague “human rights and fundamental freedoms” phrase; and the bold addition of economic and social rights to the more traditional civil and political rights.

When Viola so informed the Clown in Twelfth Night, was she prophetic of our nice dallying today with the word boycott? Have we made it wanton in applying it to foreign affairs? Let us see.

In two cases decided in the afterglow of the centennial of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court said nearly everything the modern lawyer needs to know about the source and extent of Congress’s power to regulate immigration. The cases sustained the constitutionality of the first significant congressional restrictions on immigration—the shameful Chinese exclusion laws. Constitutional analysis of the immigration power has yet to shed the original sins of the Court’s ratification of Congress’s ignominious legislation.

The trials of war criminals which occurred subsequent to World War II resulted in a veritable flood of learned books and articles reporting on these trials and discussing their propriety and their legal significance.