Law in the setting of international relations is a curious institution. Idealists proclaim it to be the potential savior of the planet; cynics thumb their noses at it and direct attention to the difficulty of enforcing its rules. Even in the more regularized setting of international economic relations there is considerable ambiguity and conflict as to the role which law or rules should play, and much worry that recent economic stresses are creating a breakdown in the compliance with those few rules that do exist. Such breakdown can, it is alleged, lead at worst to trends similar to corresponding breakdowns in the 1930’s, or at least to the loss of one otherwise effective implement of diplomacy (rulemaking). Why negotiate new treaty rules if there is little chance they will be observed?

Protection of the physical environment of man is one of the most elemental and pressing problems of today’s world. In the past dozen years or so numerous dramatic and disastrous events have focused domestic and international attention on the growing danger of environmental deterioration and provided stimulus for national and international action to protect man against all kinds of pollution hazards. Among these environmental hazards marine pollution is perhaps the most dangerous in the long run. The sea, which covers about 70 percent of the planet, plays a vital role in maintaining the fundamental biological and ecological balance by supplying much of the oxygen on which life ultimately depends.

Few areas of the world have had such a profound effect upon history as that of the Near East. Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, the Hittite Empire, Phoenicia, Syria, ancient Israel and Judah, and the smaller kingdoms and states of the area interacted through three thousand years until Rome occupied almost the entire area. The Fertile Crescent is not a vast area, so the various civilizations and cultures were in frequent contact.

Judges of the International Court of Justice have a variety of vehicles through which they may express their judicial opinions. There are, in the first place, the judgments and opinions of the Court—results of the collegial deliberations—to which every judge may contribute. If, however, the judgment or opinion of the Court does not represent “in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to deliver a separate opinion.” And, despite misgivings on the part of some scholars early in the experience of the Permanent Court of International Justice, this right conferred by Article 57 of the Statute of the Court has been consistently interpreted as allowing individual and joint separate and dissenting opinions. Finally, Article 95 of the Rules of Court, adopted on April 14, 1978, provides, inter alia, that “[a]ny judge may, if he so desires, attach his individual opinion to the judgment, whether he dissents from the majority or not; a judge who wishes to record his concurrence or dissent without stating his reasons may do so in the form of a declaration.”

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.