During the past few years Swedish Courts have repeatedly dealt with cases involving problems of international law of great general interest. Several of these cases have concerned problems of the immunity of ships owned by foreign Governments. Each case has presented characteristic peculiarities and difficulties of its own and as a result various legal aspects of the problem have been thoroughly examined by the courts. Apart from these purely legal difficulties the cases have usually been of a politically delicate character. There has thus existed the risk that foreign Governments would attempt to bring pressure to bear on the Swedish courts whose independence and objectivity have, therefore, frequently been severely tested. This circumstance renders an examination of Swedish judicial practice during the past few years particularly interesting. Owing to the importance of the problems dealt with from the point of view of international law and of the light they shed on the administration of justice in Sweden during a difficult period, a brief summary and analysis of the principal cases may be of some interest to the American public.

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.

The word ultimatum is used repeatedly in the Report of the Army Pearl Harbor Board and in the testimony given to the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the Pearl Harbor disaster. In the former it is asserted that the Japanese regarded the “Ten Points” submitted to their government on November 26, 1941, as an ultimatum, and the testimony of Ambassador Grew is cited in support of the statement.

Statesmen, politicians, political scientists, journalists, and radio commentators seem to agree on one thing about the United Nations: success or failure depends upon the spirit animating its members. As Eagleton says, “The system [embodied in the United Nations Charter] does not automatically guarantee security to anyone, and whether it will provide peace and human advancement will depend entirely upon the willingness of its Members to coöperate toward these ends.”

The proclamation of the President of the United States on September 28, 1945, declaring as a matter of policy that the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf appertain to the United States, proves to have offered a marketable concept in the marts of international law. Six States have followed the example in the last three years, with certain notable modifications of their own, and it appears not improbable that the principle thus put forward may gain increasing acceptance in international practice. It seems appropriate therefore briefly to review various developments with respect to jurisdiction over the continental shelf, the epicontinental sea, and their resources.