At Paris, on October 23, 1954, the United States, the United Kingdom, the French Republic (the “Three Powers”) and the Federal Republic of Germany, as part of the salvage operations following the collapse of the plan for a European Defense Community, signed a Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany. The first article of that Protocol provides that, upon ratification by the four signatories, the so-called Contractual Agreements with the Federal Republic of Germany, originally signed at Bonn on May 26, 1952, shall enter into force—with, however, certain amendments contained in five Schedules to the Protocol.

The personnel difficulties of the United Nations Secretariat, so much dramatized since 1952, have served to focus exceptional attention on the Secretary General and his employment policies, as well as on the constitutional position of the Secretariat, its staff and their relations to the General Assembly and to the Administrative Tribunal. Indeed a substantial literature examining these issues —issues arising, in part, out of the United States’ allegations of “subversive” personnel in the Secretariat—now must be added to the already imposing structure of scholarship dealing with international organizations and officials since their beginnings in the League system and into the United Nations period.

The rules concerning the relation of international law to internal law in Austria have undergone less change than those of many other European countries since the end of World War I. The relevant provisions of the Austrian Federal Constitution of October 1, 1920, were not affected by the subsequent constitutional reforms. These rules had been the subject of much theoretical discussion before a sizable body of constitutional usage and relevant jurisprudence had developed. The present article aims at examining and supplementing these theories in the light of current practice.

The history of the International Court of Justice in its thirty-third year is contained in narrow compass. It is chiefly confined to one judgment rendered by the Court in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed From Borne in 1943, and to the advisory opinion given by the Court on the Effect of Awards Made By the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. Apart from these, in the Nottebohm Case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the time for the rejoinder of Guatemala to be filed was extended for one month, to November 2, 1954. Action was taken by the Court ordering that the “Électricité de Beyrouth” Company Case be removed from the list at the request of the French Government; the Court also ordered that two cases brought by the United States against Hungary and the Soviet Union, relating to the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America, should be removed from the list for lack of jurisdiction.

The object of the present article is to survey the problems and to assess the achievements and prospects of the codification of international law within the United Nations in the light of the experience of the first five years of the activity of the International Law Commission. The Charter, in Article 13, imposes upon the General Assembly the obligation to “initiate studies and to make recommendations … for the purpose of encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification.” In pursuance of that article the General Assembly set up the International Law Commission and adopted a Statute regulating its functions and organization. The first session of the Commission took place in 1949. Since then, it has been meeting in yearly sessions lasting between eight and eleven weeks.

In a press conference of January 19, 1955, President Eisenhower envisaged the possibility of settling the problem of China by recognizing the existence of “two Chinas”—mainland China, on the one hand, and Formosa and the Pescadores, on the other—and promoting a non-aggression agreement between them. From the point of view of international law this suggestion involves consideration of (1) the de facto situation, (2) the law of recognition, and the application of that law (3) to mainland China, (4) to Formosa and the Pescadores, and (5) in American traditions. Apart from considerations of fact and law, considerations of present national interest and opinion are important.

The United Kingdom, like the United States, tried after the last war to protect the interests of its citizens in the many Central and Eastern European countries in which first the means of production and not much later the means of distribution were “nationalized.” Its success in these endeavors was about as disappointing as that of the United States. Neither the United Kingdom nor the United States succeeded in protecting in these countries the individual rights of their citizens by means of diplomatic intervention. The disintegration of the conception of property rights in Europe has gone so far that no individual claimant seems to have been able to obtain full satisfaction. Only where timely economic countermeasures were taken against the confiscating states could compensation agreements be concluded which provide for some measure of compensation.

As Chairman of the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes had occasion to observe that “certain of the resolutions … adopted by the Conference are put in treaty form. … In other cases, the resolutions are of a character not requiring such sanction in the form of a treaty, and are deemed to be binding upon the Powers according to their tenor when adopted by the Conference.” Problems of a comparable nature arise with reference to the obligatory force and juridical effect in international law of “decisions,” “agreements” and “arrangements” set forth in the Final Act of the London Conference of 1954 on Germany.

During its eighth regular session, the General Assembly of the United Nations considered “that it is desirable for the maintenance and development of peaceful relations between States that the principles of international law governing State responsibility be codified.” To this end, the Assembly requested the International Law Commission to undertake the codification of these principles. The Tenth Inter-American Conference, held in Caracas March 1–28, 1954, adopted a similar resolution.

The development of various regional organizations may seem a paradox in the light of the present interdependencies of the world community and its increasing common interests. The growing intensity of this interdependence, so forcibly demonstrated by the concept of collective security, calls for a truly universal organization. A regional organization by itself, however extensive and efficient it may be, could hardly meet and resolve global problems, such as control of atomic energy, and subserve the best interests of the world community as a whole.