When the Court began the revision of its rules of procedure in 1967, the approach then followed was to attempt a systematic revision of the Rules in their entirety and as an integrated whole. However, in 1972, the Cour suspended the full-scale and complete revision it had initiated and decided instead simply to amend certain articles of the existing Rules of Court.

It is the purpose of this paper to describe Canadian approaches toward international law, as they have evolved in recent years, particularly in relation to activities in outer space and “ocean space” made possible by new technological developments. It is intended to demonstrate both the similarities and the dissimilarities in these new approaches as compared with those followed by Canada in the past. Not within the scope of this study are questions about the validity of a particular point of view expressed by Canada, the extent to which new positions are well founded in the traditional concepts of international law, whether precedents for particular concepts are or are not correctly interpreted by Canada spokesmen and negotiators. What we are setting out to do is to observe and describe new Canadian attitudes toward international law and to evaluate their significance. History has not yet allowed us the privilege of a perspective in time. We plead this defense for the errors we may make in both interpretation and evaluation.

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.”

Sixty-six aircraft of United States or foreign registration were hijacked from January 1, 1961 through 1968; 277 aircraft of U.S. or foreign registration were hijacked from January 1, 1969 through 1972; nine aircraft of foreign registration, and none of U.S. registration, were hijacked in the first eight months of 1973. Inherent in these figures is an evolution in the nature of the offense and an intensification of rigor in the national and international response to the offense, as well as the emergence of certain legal and political problems as yet unresolved. At the same time, the dramatic decline in hijacking between January and August 31, 1973 should be greeted with caution, not euphoria, lest there be a regression to the condition of national and international complacency about aircraft hijacking which obtained up to 1968.

Professor Briggs’ summary of the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited fairly recapitulates the principal reasons which led the Court to deny “the existence of any general rule of international law or of any special circumstances or considerations of equity which confer a right of diplomatic protection of national shareholders in a foreign company where the acts complained of were directed by authorities of a third state against the company rather than against any legal rights of the shareholders as such.”

The present article examines the provisions on the western frontier of Poland in the treaties concluded by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1970 with the Soviet Union and Poland. The emphasis will be on the Polish-German Treaty, which is essentially concerned with the settlement of the frontier issue between the two parties. The article deals with the position of the German party and its competence to enter into treaty obligations that bear on the frontiers of Germany, as well as with the competence of the Great Powers to do so. Further, the article elucidates the meaning and effects of the resolution which the German Bundestag adopted when it voted the laws which approved the treaties and enabled the President of the Federal Republic to ratify them. Against this background of the competences of the interested states, the article briefly analyzes the contents of the clauses that bear on the Oder-Neisse frontier.

All humanitarian action takes place in a political context, and has, therefore, a political content. This means that all “humanitarian” organizations, such as those operating under the sig of the Red Cross, have a duty to define a humanitarian policy which will be valid in the long term, based on a thorough analysis of the political context, the main characteristics of an epoch, the political societies of our time, and the world political system. Such a humanitarian policy entails in turn the development of a humanitarian strategy which is distinct from the tactical moves imposed by varying crises. Neglect of this work of reflection leads to contradiction and confusion and, worse still, the degradation of humanitarian action to the level of a political instrument.

Today, the anniversary of the death of Franklin Roosevelt, is especially appropriate for a discussion of the political evolution of two territories whose development, before and after his death, was shaped by Roosevelt’s enlightened vision of world public order. The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) was an inheritance of a war waged by the United States in affirmation of “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they live.” Puerto Rico’s progressive dismantlement of colonial government had its origins in the New Deal. It was furthered by Roosevelt’s support of Puerto Rico’s Popular Democratic Party and a policy favoring self-determination and decolonization entrusted by Roosevelt to a succession of sympathetic and imaginative administrators. Both territories emerged in the postwar period as natural objects of the concern of the world community which Roosevelt helped to organize.

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.

In the July 1973 issue of the Journal, there appeared an article with the above title written by Professor Richard Falk, in which he, in effect, advanced the thesis that the release of prisoners of war for repatriation during the course of hostilities in Vietnam to an ad hoc and self-styled “humanitarian organization” (which admittedly consisted solely of individuals who were vocal opponents of the United States participation in those hostilities) either constituted a valid and forward-looking interpretation of the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereinafter referred to as “the 1949 Convention”) or indicated the need for revision of that instrument. The subject appears to be one which calls for an analysis in considerably greater depth than the treatment provided in the article by Professor Falk.

In the Bangladesh crisis, two important objectives of international law appeared to be in conflict: that of peace and that of justice. The former objective is set out in the rules of the U.N. Charter against the use of force by states except in self-defense against an armed attack. The second is found in the provisions of the Charter and in various resolutions, declarations, and covenants pertaining to fundamental human rights and self determination.

As a form of government the Estado Libre Asociado, or to use the English title the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, reflects a cultural, economic, social, political process of long duration. It also embodies an explicit program of political pioneering initiated after the end of World War II.

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.

The present legal status of Berlin after the conclusion on September 3, 1971 of the Quadripartite Agreement between France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States can only be understood in terms of its own historical development and the context of the international politics of the 1960s. Although any legal and political analysis of divided Germany and Berlin must take into account a period of history dating back to the 1940s, it is assumed here that the essential facts are sufficiently well known to serve as a background for the following analysis.

The complex process surrounding the nationalization of the copper industry in Chile has raised numerous important questions and engendered conflicting claims about principles and standards required by international law in property takings affecting the interests and rights of aliens. The purpose of this article is to examine, in an objective fashion, some of these questions and claims with particular reference to well-established precedents and contemporary doctrines in this problematic area of international law. Such an attempt at objectivity is not easy since the Chilean nationalization involves necessarily disparate notions about the right to property and its protection under municipal and international law.

On October 18, 1972 the United States and the Soviet Union completed the negotiation of a comprehensive series of arrangements covering trade between the two countries. A Trade Agreement, consisting of nine articles and three annexes, and complemented by several exchanges of letters, establishes a new legal framework for the development of US-USSR trade.

One of the fundamental objectives that has guided international society during the last twenty to twenty-five years has been the quest for self-determination for all peoples. For many former colonies, the principle of self-determination has already been fulfilled through the acquisition of national independence. For others, self-determination has been delayed, due in large part, to the balance of conflicting forces that have prevailed within international society during this same period of time. But the present interaction of these political and economic forces and their juridical effects at the international level have brought to the surface new expectations for those who still struggle to free themselves from colonialism.

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.