Our special area is international law and organization and our particular concern is the process by which international public policy is enforced by international political organizations, especially through the media of economic modalities.

It is a commonplace that much of the analytical philosophy of law of the last one hundred years controls and conditions, consciously or unconsciously, the thinking and, perhaps, the practice of law and modern affairs. This fact is of special importance to international lawyers because the analytical approach to law contains a bias in favour of domestic or national law. This is understandable, for legal philosophy was first propounded to explain domestic phenomena.

The purpose of this paper is to describe from an historical point of view the main developments in the teaching of international law in Canadian law schools from the time when the subject was first taught, in the mid-nineteenth century, to the early years of the present decade.

The paper is divided into five parts, dealing respectively with the law schools of Quebec, the Maritime provinces, Ontario, the Prairie provinces, and the Pacific coast. A chronological account is given of the teaching of international law in each law school, describing first the teachers, their backgrounds, personalities, attitudes to international law and other interests, and, second, the courses taught, texts and casebooks used, and the importance placed on international law in the general curriculum, as indicated by the time devoted to it, whether it was elective or compulsory, and the year in which it was taught. For the most part, the discussion is restricted to the law schools in the various universities. Although it would be interesting to consider the parallel development of international law teaching in other disciplines, such as political science, the subject is so vast that some limit must be imposed on it.

There are no universally applicable procedural standards under international law for independence referenda. However, in contemporary comparative practice, a minimum requirement has emerged for clarity of both the winning majority and the referendum question. This article demonstrates that Scotland could become an independent state with the lowest popular support in recent international practice, yet this outcome would not compromise the legitimacy of the vote. Even the referendum question is an exemplar of textual clarity. However, the possibility of a referendum on the United Kingdom’s (UK) exit from the European Union (EU) complicates the matter. The author argues that, with independence, Scotland would, prima facie, also exit the EU, unless negotiated otherwise. However, with a potential referendum on the UK’s EU membership on the horizon, Scots do not know whether a vote to remain within the UK is also a vote to remain within the EU. Given the complexity and significance of the EU legal order, Scots have a right to know whether, at least in the near future, the alternative to independence is the UK within or outside the EU. If the two referenda fall too close to each other, the clarity of the Scottish independence referendum could be unduly compromised.

This article discusses four judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada that transformed private international law in Canada and represent a striking episode in the internationalization of law — a form of judicial activism in the name of the international. It is argued that these cases evidence a mode of internationalization by internationalist policy consciousness that is distinct from, although often complementary to, internationalization via the mechanism of international treaties or changes in customary international law. The key features of this approach suggest some resemblances to the vision found in the traditions of liberal internationalism, Canadian internationalism, and public international law. The article cautions against several general dangers in the use of this approach in law reform and adjudication and uses two specific doctrinal issues in private international law to demonstrate what a richer policy discourse concerning internationalism would be.

The Development of an International River Seldom proceeds at the same pace in the states through which it flows. The River Nile affords a good illustration of this: Egypt has for a long time substantially utilized its waters for irrigation; the Sudan has so far made moderate use of them, but is now embarking on a programme of agricultural expansion; and the states farther upstream, such as Ethiopia, Tanganyika, and Uganda, which supply the waters for the river, have scarcely begun to make use of them. The same story can be told of many other rivers.

This unequal development of a river can cause great political, economic, and legal difficulties. Sooner or later, the state which has been slow to develop the portion of the river in its territory will need more and more water for domestic and sanitary purposes, for agriculture, for hydro-electric power, for industry, and so forth. As long as it can satisfy its needs without making claims on the water on which other co-riparian states depend, there will be no quarrel; but it will be otherwise when it can no longer do so. Competition for the limited supply of water will then lead to conflict. The future economic growth of one state at the expense of others will often be involved; perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment, as in the case of the Columbia River, or millions of lives, as in the case of the Indus, may be put in jeopardy.

The General Assembly of the United Nations at its twenty-second session unanimously adopted by Resolution 2312 (XXII) of December 14, 1967, a “Declaration on Territorial Asylum.” This Resolution reads:

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 1839 (XVII) of 19 December 1962, 2100 (XX) of 20 December 1965 and 2203 (XXI) of 16 December 1966 concerning a declaration on the right of asylum,

Considering the work of codification to be undertaken by the International Law Commission in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1400 (XIV) of 21 November 1959,

Adopts the following Declaration

Baigné par trois océans et possédant l'un des littoraux les plus vastes du monde, le Canada porte un intérêt des plus soutenus au droit international de la mer et particulièrement aux règles qui définissent l'étendue et le régime des eaux intérieures, de la mer territoriale et de la zone contiguë.

L'immense domaine maritime du pays comprend d'innombrables baies et fiords de toutes dimensions, de vastes estuaires et bras de mer, de nombreux détroits, plusieurs archipels, enfin des côtes bordées de glaces permanentes. Du fait de cette configuration géographique exceptionnellement variée, sont done soulevées toutes les questions débattues par les publicistes depuis que Grotius, Selden et Bynkershoek discutèrent les droits auxquels peuvent prétendre les Etats à l'égard des eaux qui ceinturent leurs côtes.

The decision of the ad hoc court of arbitration on the delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and France is undoubtedly the most important addition to the body of law relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf since the decision of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. The reasons for the decision will be of particular interest in Canada in view of unsettled boundaries with the United States on the east and west coasts and in the Beaufort Sea, and with France in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The arbitration was a consequence of the inability of France and the United Kingdom to settle by negotiation their continental shelf boundary westward of 30 degrees west of Greenwich to the outer limit of the shelf. The principal difficulties were the effect to be given to the Channel Islands and the method for delimiting the area of shelf lying beyond the land of either country out into the Atlantic, the area denoted by the tribunal as the “Atlantic region.”

The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System) has been adopted by the major trading nations of the world, including Canada. Decisions of the European Court of Justice are influential for interpretation of the Harmonized System. According to these decisions, goods should be classified under the Harmonized System on the basis of their physical characteristics, while factors that relate to use after importation should be considered only if they are reflected in the physical characteristics. The author rejects this narrow approach and argues that interpretation will be successful only if it is done in light of the full commercial context, including use after importation, advertising, distribution, and market indicators such as price. The article reviews Canadian case law since implementation of the Harmonized System in 1988 as well as some decisions interpreting the pre-1988 Canadian nomenclature, which contained many tariff items that depended on the end use of goods after importation.

As international relations grow in their scope and intensity, it is not surprising to find the traditional modes of diplomatie intercourse, centred around the permanent mission, giving way in many spheres to new forms of contact among nations that are more adapted to the exigencies of modem statecraft. Rapid communications and transportation have rendered superfluous or obsolete many of the functions which historically have been the preserve of the sedentary diplomat. Summit meetings, high level talks, and “shuttle diplomacy” provide a more direct and immediate means of communication which is resorted to with increasing frequency in a time when the world seems confronted with a rapid succession of crises. Moreover, the permanent mission, which evolved at a time when diplomacy was concerned primarily with the maintenance of political representation in foreign capitals, is not always well suited as an agency for participation in international conferences and congresses or negotiations on highly technical or scientific questions. These are matters which in recent years have become of increasing importance in the conduct of international relations.

In its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

Many volumes have been written on international organizations dealing with their political aspects and even their legal and constitutional intricacies. But regrettably their constitutions have not yet been studied fully on a comparative basis. The constitutions of intergovernmental organizations such as the specialized agencies of the United Nations offer a fascinating field of study that is important to be explored.

The 1995 Agreement on the Regime for Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks completes one aspect of the work of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. This article presents a summary of the provisions of the 1995 Agreement and their relationship to the 1982 Convention. The author offers insights into the possible effectiveness of several articles and concludes that the 1995 Agreement offers states the possibility of a stable and predictable dispute resolution mechanism. Whether states will take advantage of this regime is another question.