Every road vehicle must have a driver able to control it while in motion. These requirements, explicit in two important conventions on road traffic, have an uncertain relationship to the automated motor vehicles that are currently under development—often colloquially called “self-driving” or “driverless.” The immediate legal and policy questions are straightforward: Are these requirements consistent with automated driving and, if not, how should the inconsistency be resolved? More subtle questions go directly to international law's role in a world that artificial intelligence is helping to rapidly change: In a showdown between a promising new technology and an entrenched treaty regime, which prevails? Should international law bend to avoid breaking? If so, what kind of flexibility is appropriate with respect to both the status and the substance of treaty obligations? And what role should deliberate ambiguity play in addressing these obligations? This essay raises these questions through the concrete case of automated driving. It introduces the road traffic conventions, identifies competing interpretations of their core driver requirements, and highlights ongoing efforts at the Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety to reach a consensus.

The July 2019 decision of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands constitutes the final act of a long litigation arising from the July 1995 genocide in Srebrenica. After Bosnian Serb militias attacked the safe area of Srebrenica, members of the Dutch battalion (Dutchbat), which was responsible for safeguarding the enclave under a UN mandate, permitted between 8,000 and 10,000 men and boys to be taken away by Bosnian Serb forces. Those men and boys were eventually killed by forces commanded by General Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić, president of the autonomous Republika Srpska. This Supreme Court decision and related rulings involve issues of international responsibility for the conduct of peacekeepers—in particular, attribution of conduct to the United Nations and its member states and immunity of international organizations.

“ I have often taken occasion to remark that next to the Church, the Mixed Courts are the most successful international institution in history.” (Farewell address of Sir Maurice Amos, Judicial Adviser to the Egyptian Government, Alexandria, March 25,1925, trans.)

On July 11, 1984, the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies entered into force following the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the fifth instrument of ratification. The Agreement, following its adoption by the General Assembly, was opened for signature on December 18, 1979. In the intervening years, it has been signed by Austria, Chile, France, Guatemala, India, Morocco, the Netherlands, Peru, the Philippines, Romania and Uruguay. The fifth state to deposit its ratification was Austria, which followed Chile, the Philippines, Uruguay and the Netherlands.

“ . . . It would be strange if now, in face of the formidable development of international debts, there were nothing for the lawyer to say.” Sir John Fischer Williams, Chapters on Current International Law and the League of Nations, p. 257 (1929).

The domestic and international legal status of warships and military aircraft submerged in United States waters or in international waters has been quite contentious of late. It has resulted in some notable litigation in U.S. courts, a presidential statement on U.S. policy, official lodgings of positions by foreign governments with the United States, a proposed international convention drafted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and other developments that have previously received notice in the pages of this Journal. In a somewhat surprising turn, Congress, in October 2004, adopted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 a set of provisions known as the Sunken Military Craft Act (SMCA). This essay briefly traces the trajectory of developments in this sector of international law, analyzes the provisions of the SMCA, and offers a critique of the underlying policy and legal assumptions of that statute in light of those developments.

Among the subjects tentatively suggested by the Government of the United States in September, 1921, to the governments invited to participate in a conference on “ Limitation of Armament” and on “ Pacific and Far Eastern Questions” was that of the application of the principles that might be decided upon in questions relating to China to the territorial and administrative integrity of that state. When the Committee on Pacific and Far Eastern Questions took up the general discussion of matters within its purview, the expressions of high intention toward China on the part of the different interested Powers were so unanimous that it was deemed advisable to draw up immediately a statement of principle embodying these sentiments. At the first meeting of the committee the Chinese delegation had presented a group of statements of principle, of which the first reads: “ The Powers engage to respect and observe the territorial integrity and political and administrative independence of the Chinese Republic,” and the fifth as follows: “ Immediately or as soon as circumstances will permit, existing limitations upon China's political, jurisdictional and administrative freedom of action are to be removed.”

It is of interest to the student of international affairs to examine the relationships of Soviet Russia with international organizations, both public and private, and of the policies governing those relationships. The study aims to find out why the Soviet Government has joined some international unions, affiliated with certain groups, and has refused to cooperate with others. What has been the Soviet Government’s policy in entering into multipartite conventions; why has it become a successor to some international agreements that were ratified by the Imperial Russian Government and rejected or abrogated others; and to what extent is the Soviet Union guided by generally accepted principles of international law in its foreign policies as evidenced by its participation in international organizations?

On September 20, 1986, the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1947 (GATT 1947) agreed to launch an eighth round of multilateral trade negotiations known as the Uruguay Round. More than seven years later they concluded the round, not with an amended version of the GATT 1947, but with an entirely new treaty, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.

The work which has been undertaken by the United Nations with regard to the encouragement of the progressive development and codification of international law finds its express origin in the duty given to the General Assembly by Article 13, paragraph 1 (a) of the Charter of the United Nations. It is therein laid down that: “ 1 . The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of: (a) promoting international cooperation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification.” At the Conference held at San Francisco, April 25 to June 25, 1945, at which the Charter of the United Nations wasdrawn up, the measures that should be taken for “revitalizing and strengthening” international law, shaken in the course of a quarter of a century by the upheaval of two World Wars, were considered by Committee II/2 of the Conference.

In a preceding article has been described the first edition of the De Jure Belli ac Pacis, printed in Paris by Nicholas Buon in the spring of 1625. It would appear that this first edition was soon exhausted and Grotius set about the preparation of a second edition. He wrote to his brother William, August 29,1625, as follows: “Buon says that the edition of the Apologeticus is exhausted and that he has few remaining copies of the Law of War and Peace. Therefore he is preparing to reprint them both. I shall await the advice of my friends as to what they think ought to be changed or added.” How far he went with this is not clear. It was planned that the second edition would be printed by Buon, but delays intervened and Buon's death, April 22, 1628, took place probably when about half of the printing had been done. In writing to his brother William July 27, 1628, Grotius said: “My books concerning the Law of War and Peace have been revised by me in many places. Buon has died. His heirs are continually at odds. In the meantime I am considering whether I should send these books to Leyden.” At the end of 1628 he sent his brother a copy in which were noted emendations and additions. He said: ”I send you the books on the Law of War and Peace with not inconsiderable additions. I submit the care of these to you and your friends as, if I judge correctly, it is the most important of my works.”