On November 20, 1948, Chinese Communist Party soldiers, without previous warning, cordoned the United States Consul General's office and the residential compounds of the consular staff at Mukden, China, and subjected the entire United States consular staff and their families to house arrest inside the compounds. The detention lasted over a year. For almost seven months the party was held incommunicado and subjected to numerous privations. Adequate water, light, medical care, and sanitary and roofing repairs were denied, mobility within the compounds was restricted, and members of the staff were subjected to badgering interrogations and examinations.

The International Law Commission, established by resolution 174 (II) of the General Assembly (November 21, 1947), has prepared a draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, in conformity with resolution 178 (II) of the General Assembly (November 21, 1947). The first question which arises concerns the legal nature of this Declaration. The draft Declaration was drawn up by the Commission as the text of a resolution to be adopted by the General Assembly.

On the agenda of the Security Council, and regularly listed by the Secretary General among the “matters of which the Security Council is seized” is the item “Question of Hyderabad.” No action has yet been taken by the Security Council on this item, further than keeping it on the agenda; the case has been presented but not discussed. Various interesting questions of international law and of the constitutional law of the United Nations are raised by this situation, which is thus far the worst failure of the United Nations. Equally as interesting political factors are involved, which have in fact had more weight than the legal factors. Only the latter will be considered in this discussion.

The Mixed Courts of Egypt closed their doors on October 15th, 1949. At their inauguration in 1875, the Khedive Ismail had used these words: “This day, gentlemen, will mark the commencement of a new era of civilisation in the history of Egypt.“ This was a bold prophecy to make for an institution to whom the Powers had given only five years of life. The event, however, amply justified the Khedive's prediction, and proved once more the truth of the Egyptian proverb, “Only the provisional endures.” The institution survived every test. Twenty times its life was successively renewed for periods varying from two to five years. The well-known words of Sir Maurice Amos, spoken in 1925, when the Courts were rounding the half-century mark, might still challenge contradiction a quarter of a century later, as they reached the end of their life: “I have often taken occasion to remark that next to the Church, the Mixed Courts are the most successful institution in history.”

The right of an alien to inherit real estate or the proceeds of its sale in any of the States of the United States is specifically provided for in a number of treaties currently in force between the United States and other countries; but the right of an alien to inherit personal property from a deceased American citizen is left for the most part to the discretion of our States. That is the rather surprising conclusion to be drawn from a study of the existing treaties of the United States in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Clark v. Allen.