Territorial disputes are commonplace in the history of international relations. The United States has had its share—the northeastern boundary with the British territories after the Revolutionary War, “54:40 or fight” in 1845–1846, the Alaskan boundary arbitration in 1903, and many others— including El Chamizal. This “thicket” or “brierpatch” was one in which the friendly relations between the United States and Mexico were entangled for almost a century. “The Chamizal conflict has not been a major factor in United States-Mexican relations, but has been a constant emotional irritant which has plagued both nations and had frequent reverberations throughout Latin America.”

In the Namibia case, the International Court of Justice for the first time in its history received an application for the appointment of a judge ad hoc in advisory proceedings. The application was made by South Africa on the basis of Article 83 of the Rules of Court which provides for the possibility of seating judges ad hoc in advisory procedings involving “a legal question actually pending between two or more States.” No state or international organization entitled to appear before the Court opposed the South African request, and no state other than South Africa submitted an application for a judge ad hoc. After an oral hearing (held in camera over strong South African protests 8) in which only South Africa presented argument, the Court, in its Order of January 29, 1971, decided, by a vote of 10 to 5, to reject South Africa's application. The Court offered no explanation for its decision at the time. Of the five dissenting judges, only Judges Onyeama and Dillard appended to the Order the reasons for their dissent. The remaining dissenting judges (and, by implication, the Court itself) feared that early disclosure of the reasons for their stands entailed the risk of prejudging substantive questions in the case. (As will be seen below, Judges Onyeama and Dillard had no cause to entertain similar fears.) With the delivery of the opinion, however, all five dissenting judges voiced strong criticism of the Court's refusal to admit a South African judge ad hoc.

On September 2, 1972, the North Vietnamese Foreign Ministry issueda statement announcing the release of three American pilots who were being held in detention since their capture by North Vietnam. The statement gave no particular reason for the release except to affirm North Vietnam's “lenient policy” and to indicate that the release was being made “on the occasion” of an annual independence day holiday called National Day. It was subsequently learned that the release was part of a wider amnesty, which included Vietnamese citizens who had been sent to jail for ordinary criminal activity.

It is provided by Article 1(1) of the United Nations Charter that the adjustment or settlement of disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace is to be brought about in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. There is much controversy about the precise meaning of this article, but its broad intention is clear; that if the United Nations is to command respect, without which its recommendations and decisions can never be effective, its organs must not act, or give occasion to be suspected of acting, in an unfair or arbitrary manner.