The terms of Annex Three of the Anglo-Italian Agreement signed at Rome on April 16, 1938, focus attention, inter alia, upon the legal status of a vast area adjoining the British Crown Colony of Aden. Not only does this part of the agreement bring to the fore many questions relative to the Arabian Peninsula and the Red Sea region, but recent political developments in India as well have resulted in a change in legal status of Aden together with the Aden hinterland. These changes under the British Crown are important in a discussion of British jurisdiction in this area.

The recent annexation of Austria to the German Reich (the terms “incorporation” or “absorption” are preferred by some) has raised certain questions of international law or practice with which other states have already had, or will have, to deal and upon some of which Germany also will be called upon to take a position. Among the questions already raised or which may be raised are the following: (1) Assuming that the annexation was brought about by the use of armed force against Austria without her consent and in violation of treaties or international law, should those states which have bound themselves by treaties not to recognize the validity of territorial annexations made under such circumstances, accord de jure recognition to the German annexation of Austria? (2) What effect did the annexation have on the status and obligations of Austria as a member of the League of Nations? (3) What effect did it have on the status of the treaties between Austria and other countries which were in force at the time of the annexation? (4) Did the application of Germany’s treaties with other states extend automatically, following the annexation, to the territory of Austria? (5) Is Germany bound by the generally recognized rules of international law to assume the payment of the debts of the former Austrian state, including those of the local governments of Austria?

In Google v. Equustek, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Google to delist all websites used by Datalink, a company that stole trade secrets from Equustek, a Canada-based information technology company. Google had agreed to do so in part, but with respect to searches that originated from google.ca only, the default browser for those in Canada. Equustek however, argued the takedowns needed to be global in order to be effective. It thus sought an injunction ordering Google to delist the allegedly infringing websites from all of Google's search engines—whether accessed from google.ca, google.com, or any other entry point. Google objected. The Canadian Supreme Court, along with the two lower Canadian courts that considered the issue, sided with Equustek (para. 54). The ruling sets up a potential showdown between Canadian and U.S. law and raises critically important questions about the appropriate geographic and substantive scope of takedown orders, the future of free speech online, and the role of intermediaries such as Google in preventing economic and other harms.

The present article examines the provisions on the western frontier of Poland in the treaties concluded by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1970 with the Soviet Union and Poland. The emphasis will be on the Polish-German Treaty, which is essentially concerned with the settlement of the frontier issue between the two parties. The article deals with the position of the German party and its competence to enter into treaty obligations that bear on the frontiers of Germany, as well as with the competence of the Great Powers to do so. Further, the article elucidates the meaning and effects of the resolution which the German Bundestag adopted when it voted the laws which approved the treaties and enabled the President of the Federal Republic to ratify them. Against this background of the competences of the interested states, the article briefly analyzes the contents of the clauses that bear on the Oder-Neisse frontier.

On April 26, 2012, Trial Chamber II (Chamber) of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (Special Court or Court) in The Hague convicted former Liberian president Charles Ghankay Taylor of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from November 30, 1996, to January 18, 2002, in the territory of Sierra Leone during its civil war. Specifically, Taylor was found guilty of the crimes against humanity of murder, rape, sexual slavery, enslavement and other inhumane acts, and the war crimes of committing acts of terror, murder, outrages upon personal dignity, cruel treatment, pillage, and conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities. In a separate judgment rendered on May 30, 2012, the Chamber sentenced Taylor to a single term of fifty years for all the counts on which the accused had been convicted.

No international institution of general scope can continue its normal functioning in a period of a great world upheaval, and any international institution for the preservation of law and order must find its activities circumscribed at such a time. The Permanent Court of International Justice was no exception to the rule.

At its sixty-ninth conference, held in London from July 25 to 29, 2000, the International Law Association (ILA) approved by consensus the Declaration of International Law Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (the Declaration). This Declaration, prepared by the International Committee on Internally Displaced Persons, followed two earlier ILA proclamations relating to the forced movement of people: the Declaration of Principles of International Law on Mass Expulsion, adopted in Seoul in 1986; and the Declaration of Principles of International Law on Compensation to Refugees, adopted in Cairo in 1992. All three instruments address forced movement from the perspective of the responsibility of countries of origin, in contrast to the traditional focus on the care and maintenance of refugees as a responsibility of first-asylum, resettlement, and donor countries, as well as of the United Nations and other international organizations, both governmental and non-governmental. By dealing with the root causes of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and their status, the present Declaration broadens the concerns of international law to encompass all persons who have been forcibly uprooted from their homes, whether or not they have crossed their national borders.

On October 25, 1986, the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law decided to divest the Society’s investment portfolio of stocks in all corporations “with direct investments in South Africa.” This action, which was taken by the Council after considerable debate, superseded the Society’s former policy of investing only in corporations with a high ranking under the “Sullivan principles.” The Council’s action is worthy of note in light of recent divestment-related actions, but especially because the resolution of economic considerations was informed by wider issues of law, moral policy making and human rights.

After two decades of hate and antagonism following the war, Japan and the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the ROK) took a step towards amicable relations, with the signing of the normalization treaty and related documents on June 22, 1965, in Tokyo. The suspicion existed among Koreans, however, that normal relations would again bring the ROK under Japan’s economic and political domination. On the other hand, the opposition party in Japan found it unfeasible at that point for Japan to select from the divided nation of Korea the ROK as its friend. Overcoming opposition within both their parliaments, the Governments of Japan and the ROK each succeeded in securing the majority necessary to ratify these documents. The instruments of ratification were exchanged in Seoul on December 18, 1965.

The International Opium Commission proposed by the United States and accepted by Austria-Hungary, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Russia, and Siam convened at Shanghai on the 1st of last February, completed its study of the opium problem throughout the world, and based on that study, issued nine unanimous declarations. The Commission adjourned on February 27th.

Probably no single treaty containing the most-favored-nation clause has caused more controversy than that made between the United States and Prussia, May 1, 1828. Certainly none has attracted more attention from individuals and bodies other than ministerial. This being the case, and since this controversy and its issue illustrate, in a variety of phases common to no other single instance, the necessity for careful application of certain of the principles and methods of interpretation indicated, it will be profitable to study the history of German-American most-favored-nation relations in some detail.