Les Relations Transnationales de l'état fédéré canadien s'intègrent dans le cadre global du système mondial dont elles suivent les fluctuations. Elles ne peuvent done être analysées sous leur aspect juridique sans un bref rappel de ces facteurs externes, en mettant l'accent sur les problèmes spécifiques aux Etats fédéraux.

L'accroissement des liens internationaux et, de ce fait, l'interdépendance conflictuelle et l'impératif de la solidarité mécanique ou d'intérêts politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels constituent des facteurs essentiels pour l'étude des relations Internationales de la deuxième moitié du XXe siècle, comme en témoignent notamment le conflit du Moyen Orient, la récente crise de l'énergie, l'opposition Nord-Sud et la formulation d'un nouvel ordre économique mondial. Il implique un plus grand nombre d'acteurs sur la scène mondiale, Etats, organisations internationales, sociétés multinationales, divers groupes de pression, enfin les individus, chacune de ces entités étant impliquée directement ou indirectement dans l'élaboration d'une nouvelle hiérarchie de valeurs et la création d'une nouvelle société.

The claims on behalf of a new international economic order and for the corresponding change in the basic structure of international law that such a postulated new order is thought to imply, are proclaimed, in programmatic form, in two resolutions adopted without vote by the United Nations General Assembly at its Sixth Special Session on May 1, 1974 — the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, and the so-called Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order; and in the further Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted by the General Assembly at its agth regular session on December 12, 1974, this time by a recorded vote of 120 to 6, with 10 abstentions.

About four decades ago, an eminent jurist described the doctrine of denial of justice as “l'une des plus anciennes et “l'une des plus mal elucidees du droit international.” Another writer, also noting the persistent confusion over the meaning of the doctrine, suggested that the term denial of justice could as well be removed from the language of international law. Despite such suggestions, the doctrine of denial of justice, whose origin has been traced back to antiquity, has been retained, and international lawyers have constantly attempted to elucidate its meaning. In doing so, however, international lawyers, such as Alwyn Freeman in his classic book on the subject, have, for reasons explained elsewhere, eschewed the attempt to define the term justice as such. They have concentrated mainly upon the conduct that has most frequently been regarded as constituting a denial of justice. Thus, from its origin and development, the term denial of justice may be said to have been used in the following three senses:

In its broadest sense, this term [denial of justice] seems to embrace the whole field of State responsibility, and has been applied to all types of wrongful conduct on the part of the State towards aliens. In its narrowest sense, this term has been limited to refusal of a State to grant an alien access to its courts or a failure of a court to pronounce a judgment. In an intermediate sense, the expression “denial of justice” is employed in connection with the improper administration of civil and criminal justice as regards an alien, including denial of access to courts, inadequate procedures, and unjust decisions.

In 1974 there took place in Geneva the first session of a diplomatic conference called by Switzerland at the instance of the International Committee of the Red Cross to update the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, particularly with a view to the more careful definition and exposition of what might be described as the fundamental humanitarian principles of law with regard to armed conflict. While it would be an unduly narrow assumption that humanitarian law is only relevant to an armed conflict, it must not be forgotten that breaches thereof are more likely to occur at such a time, for the man in the field has normally been trained to overthrow and if possible kill enemy personnel, even to the extent that occasionally his basic training may be in conflict with the requirements of the law of war. Generally speaking, the ordinary noncommissioned officer is unlikely to stress overmuch the restriction on the permitted means and methods of warfare to be found in the Regulations attached to Hague Convention IV of 1907. Moreover, the ideological campaigns which accompany any major war, with comments by politicians, commanders, and media alike, implying that the enemy has resorted to conduct that might only be expected from those who have placed themselves outside the protection of law or morality accompanied by insulting nicknames that suggest the enemy is not even human, all contribute to the ordinary soldier's idea that destruction of the enemy is the aim and the end regardless of the means employed to achieve it. Examples of this type of situation may be seen in both world wars, as well as in relation to the campaigns in Korea and Vietnam. However, international law has always recognized that there is a law of war and that breaches thereof may result in punishment. The simplest means of imposing such punishment, without at the same time appearing to abandon all sense of legal propriety, is by way of the trial of war criminals.

Depuis les Années Quarante, les Etats n'ont cessé de prendre conscience de l'intérêt économique que représentait pour eux le plateau continental. Les menaces de rationnement et de pénurie en hydrocarbures n'ont certes pas freiné cette évolution, compte tenu des réserves que recèle le plateau continental. Or, et de façon paradoxale, nombre de plateaux continentaux restent indéfinis dans leurs limites, souvent dans des régions “chaudes” du globe. Le Canada n'échappe pas à cette constatation, puisqu'il n'a pu délimiter son plateau jusqu'ici avec aucun de ses voisins, é une exception près.

The settlement of the Alaska-Canada boundary is one of the more colourful episodes in Canadian-American relations. After 75 years of uncertainty, disagreement, and dispute over the actual position of the boundary line between the territory of Great Britain and of Russia, and later of the United States, a tribunal was established in 1903 to interpret the treaty between Great Britain and Russia, concluded in 1825, in which the boundaries had been defined. The tribunal in rendering its decision adopted neither the contention of the United States nor that of Britain, but drew a line that corresponded more closely with official Russian maps prepared shortly after the 1825 Treaty was concluded. However, on an issue seen at the time in Canada as critical, the tribunal found in favour of the United States, awarding it the island of Sitklan and Kannaghunut at the mouth of the Portland Channel. This gave rise to a storm of protest in Canada, anger being vented particularly at the British jurist Lord Alverstone, the president of the tribunal, who was suspected of selling out to the Americans.

From 1872 until 1913 legal education in Manitoba was dependent almost entirely on apprenticeship, supplemented by private study. In 1913 the Law Society of Manitoba organized an improved programme of lectures for intending members of the bar and in 1914 the society entered into an agreement with the University of Manitoba to create and operate jointly the Manitoba Law School. The school's expenses were to be shared equally by the two parent bodies and its operations were to be supervised by a board of trustees consisting of two appointees chosen by each body and a chairman elected by the appointees. The school was modelled on the Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto and offered a three-year lecture course leading to both the LL.B. degree and admission to practice. As at Osgoode Hall, enrolment at the law school was not regarded as a substitute for service under articles. Classes were held in the morning and late afternoon and students were expected to carry out office duties during the remainder of the day.

The major international legal activity in the field of maritime transport in the first half of the 1970's was the negotiation and eventual adoption in 1974 under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (U.N.C.T.A.D.) of the Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences. The treaty-making conference itself, convened in Geneva, Switzerland, was attended by over eighty states members of U.N.C.T.A.D., including, of course, all the major trading nations, as well as by many observer delegations from U.N.C.T.A.D. member states, specialized agencies, and non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations.

Parmi les Quatre conventions conclues à Genève en 1958, la Convention sur la pêche et la conservation des ressources biologiques de la haute mer reçut le moins de ratifications. Le Canada n'etait pas étranger à l'insatisfaction ressenti par de nombreux gouvernements envers cette convention; tout en refusant de ratifier cette convention le Canada chercha d'autres moyens plus efficaces pour réglementer les pêcheries au large de ces côtes. Sur la côte est le moyen principal fut la convention internationale sur les pêcheries de l'atlantique du nord ouest, tel que modifiée, et sur la côte ouest la convention sur les pêcheries en haute mer de l'ocean pacifique du nord et de nombreux accords bilatéraux surtout avec les Etats-Unis. Bien que modifiés à de nombreuses reprises, par des protocoles subséquents, ces accords et surtout les accords multilatéraux, se sont avérés inefficaces pour proteger les intérêts vitaux des communautés côtières canadiennes vivant de la pêche ou pour empêcher une surexploitation des stocks de poissons, à cause du nombre toujours croissant des navires de pêche étrangers et de l'insuffisance des mesures de protection et de police des pêcheries. En 1964 le parlement canadien adopta la loi sur la mer territorial et les zones de pêche créant une mer territoriale de trois milles et une zone de pêche de neuf milles au delà de la mer territoriale. En 1970 le parlement canadien amenda cette loi afin d'étendre la mer territoriale à douze milles et afin de permettre le gouvernement canadien de créer des zones de pêche au delà de la mer territoriale. Par voie de règlement, le gouvernement canadien créa des zones de pêche dans la baie de Fundy, le golfe St. Laurent, le détroit Hecate, l'entrée Dixon et le bassin Reine Charlotte. La loi sur la protection des pêcheries cotières fut également amendée en 1970 afin de mieux réglementer les pêcheries étrangères dans ces nouvelles zones de pêche. En 1971 et 1972 le gouvernement du Canada conclut une série d'accords avec la Norvège, l'U.R.S.S., la Grande Bretagne, le Portugal, l'Espagne et la France prévoyant le retrait progressif des navires de pêche de ces pays des nouvelles zones de pêche canadiennes.

States are closely connected with each other in the modern world. This interconnection is due to the objective necessity for all of them to enter into certain relations. Peaceful co-existence of states with different economic and social systems determines the growing significance of co-operation between them. The necessity for cooperation can be explained not only from the economic point of view but also by the fact that a number of crises in the international intercourse still remain unregulated, thus presenting a threat to maintenance of the peace in many parts of the world.

As long as man remains creative and continues to express himself in artistic works, there is need to protect the products of his creation. The current crusade in favour of safeguarding the cultural heritage results from publicity given to the destruction of archaeological sites and antiquities, the smuggling of national art treasures, and the outcry against museums that have in their collections items that have been illegally exported. The crisis is clear. Unless the “cultural property-hungry” nations realize that controls against such illicit activities must be enforced stringently, the safety of mankind's cultural heritage is in doubt.

The international lawyer sometimes reads the current literature on the Canadian Arctic with a sense of uneasiness. A wide range of writers and scholars maintain an active discourse on questions relating to what is usually called “Arctic sovereignty.” It is not that the lawyer feels he has any special wisdom or monopoly on discussions of questions of “sovereignty.” The sovereignty concept has several layers of meaning, only one of which can be said to be the special preserve of the lawyer. Public discussion in Canada is largely, and legitimately, focussed on policy questions that flow from sovereignty, from Canada's right to exercise authority, to the exclusion of that of any other state, over vast areas of arctic lands and waters. If war is too important a matter to be left to the generals, perhaps sovereignty is too important a matter to be left to the lawyers. Nevertheless, the lawyer is sometimes troubled by a tendency of non-legal commentators to blur his favourite distinctions and to question some of his most firmly held assumptions.

The canadian council on International Law held its Fifth Annual Conference in Ottawa on October 22-23, 1976. This conference represented a break from previous ones, in that instead of concentrating on a single theme to be developed through formal sessions, the conference dealt with two separate topics and, in addition to formal panels, an opportunity was provided for participants to take part in workshops relating to those topics. The two topics of the conference were, “The Third Law of the Sea Conference: Canadian Interests and Common Concerns,” and “Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Safeguards.” An attempt was made to draw these divergent issues together with a common theme of “Avoiding International Conflicts.”