The way the peace negotiators shape the new order in the air may well have a decisive influence on the fate of mankind for generations to come. When the peace negotiators come to consider the status of the airspace and the problems of air communications, there will be not only specific questions of commercial interest and the potential military value of these communications requiring their attention, but they will have to realize that, as the energies of more and more men seek scope in the air, resulting in a general outward impulse of the nations, issues of vital moment affecting the welfare of mankind are at stake. It is clear that the solution of this problem will be determined, to a great extent, by the solution of the problem as to the form or constitution of the new international political order, which is closely bound up with the future of the group-unit of power.

When the time comes for the representatives of Japan to face those of China, Great Britain, Holland, Mexico and the United States across a table, to drive the best bargain they can for the continued national life of their island empire in the Pacific, one of the questions to be settled will be the control of the fisheries. Given the tremendous importance of fish in the food and economy of Japan, it will be a fundamental and vital question; and it would seem that for any thorough-going settlement the Soviet Union, with its shores on the Pacific, should be invited to participate in the discussion, if indeed by that time it has not actually gone to war with Japan. A brief review of the history of the problem may be of interest now and helpful to a better understanding later.

Recent European events have brought with them some interesting questions of international law which have been discussed in French courts, especially during the war. In the following pages some of these decisions will be taken up regarding:

1. I. Russian expropriation measures in Eastern Poland, September, 1939.

2. II. Claims against owners of goods expropriated by the Spanish Government.

3. III. The nationality of corporations.

4. IV. The sequestration of enemy property.

5. V. Art. 17 of the Armistice Convention between France and Germany (prohibition of the transfer of securities from the occupied zone).

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?

In explaining the nature of international law, each of the two major schools of thought draws upon legal philosophy and practice for evidence in support of its interpretation. It is not the purpose of this note to offer any conclusions or proofs as to the validity of the reasoning of one or the other of the two schools. It would require more than the subject-matter here considered to prove the “Monist” position, or to detract from that of the “Dualist.” However, inasmuch as state practice is one of the guides to the resolution of the debate on the nature of international law, it is hoped that an explanation of the attitude of the Colombian Supreme Court concerning the relationship of pacta to the national constitution and legislation of that state may merit mention.

In a previous issue of this JOURNAL the writer has discussed the position of the British courts with respect to the cases which arose out of the requisition of merchant ships during the Spanish Civil War. It was there suggested that the decisions in these cases might throw some light upon the legal situation which would possibly be created as a result of the conflicting claims of rival governments, and of dispossessed owners, to ships which were without the national territory at the time their states of registry were occupied by Axis forces. The courts of the United States were not confronted with such a wide range of problems growing out of the Spanish conflict as were those of Great Britain. This was, perhaps, due in large part to the fact that the United States accorded no recognition to the régime of General Franco prior to recognizing it as the de jure government of all Spain. Questions relative to the status of an insurgent authority recognized as a local de facto government did not, therefore, arise. In one important case, however, legal problems relating to the immunity of foreign public vessels and to the validity of extraterritorial decrees of requisition were fully examined. As Professor Hyde has remarked, the case of The Navemar may not have produced a cause célèbre, but the series of adjudications which it inspired have resulted in the most significant contributions to the law concerning the status of foreign public vessels which have been made by the American courts since the period immediately following the close of the World War.

In all three consultative meetings of American Foreign Ministers held since 1939, the American governments have officially recognized the threat of Axis psychological warfare and the possible need of meeting this danger with strong counter measures. As the war has progressed it has become increasingly evident that the independent existence of the American states might well be at stake if this problem is not effectively solved. The Panama meeting (1939) recommended that the American governments “take the necessary measure to eradicate from the Americas the spread of doctrines that tend to place in jeopardy the common Inter-American democratic ideal”; the Habana meeting (1940) made it mandatory that each government take all necessary measures to prevent and suppress such activities; and the Rio de Janeiro meeting (1942), reaffirming prior determinations in the matter, provided for the creation of a body, known as The Emergency Advisory Committee for Political Defense, to study and coördinate such measures.

Hardly another question is of greater practical interest in Latin America today, from the point of view of public order and national security, than the inadmission and expulsion of aliens. The question is specially deserving of reexamination in these days of revolutionary changes in political and legal thought, changes which suggest that legislation designed to safeguard the internal order and external security of a countryshould not be neglected lest it become powerless to cope with situations which those changes may carry in their wake. The historic events now taking place are in no small measure the symptoms of a profound transition in political and juristic ideas throughout the world.

Many applications of international law receive but little attention from the general public. Unpublicized or little-publicized settlements involving relatively obscure persons and comparatively small amounts of money tend to be undramatic. They may seem of little importance during a period of major, kaleidoscopic developments in a worldwide conflict. But the fact remains that in numerous instances rules have become the bases for the disposition of practical questions which were of importance to the individuals immediately involved and of some concern to their respective governments. Collectively, these dispositions may help to attest the vitality of the principle of legality. At a time when the world situation puts in question the very fundamental elements of an international legal system, there may still be justification for drawing attention to the manner in which settlements of private claims against governments have been and are effected.