In Article 5 of the Paris Peace Treaty of 30 May 1814 the Contracting Parties agreed to establish a regime of free navigation on the Rhine, at the same time giving a mandate to the forthcoming Congress of Vienna to establish similar navigation regimes for other rivers “which, in their navigable course, separate or traverse different States”. This idea was given substance in the definition of the international regime in the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna of 9 June 1815. Article 108, in particular, speaks of States “separated or traversed by the same navigable river”, while Article 109 provides that “the navigation of the rivers, along their whole course, referred to in the preceding article, from the point where each of them becomes navigable, to its mouth, shall be entirely free … ” So, the application of the rules of free navigation is dependent upon two criteria: the first, of a physical character, is that the water-course possesses by reason of its natural conditions the technical qualities summarized in the word “navigability”. The seond, of a political character, is the condition that the water-course borders on or passes through more than one State. But, in conformity with the basic idea of the Act of Vienna, which regulates the navigation of rivers on the basis of the community of interests of the riparians, for a waterway to be governed by this Act it is necessary that one and the same section of it fulfils both criteria. Consequently, a water-course, the non-navigable upper course of which traverses one State while the whole of its navigable course is in the territory of another State, is not covered by the Act of Vienna.

For some years the future of the International Court of Justice has been a matter of growing concern to supporters of international adjudication as a way of settling legal disputes between States. This concern has also made itself felt inside the Organization of the United Nations, where the review of the role of the Court was a standing item on the agenda of the General Assembly for a number of years until the adoption on 22 November 1974 of resolution 3232 (XXIX). In this resolution the General Assembly inter alia expressed its satisfaction with the Court's 1972 revision of its Rules, and called upon States to have recourse to the Court more often.

In previous volumes of this Yearbook, the present author has put on record a series of events under the common denominator of “reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict”. The latest event so recorded was the first session of the Diplomatic Conference on humanitarian law, held in Geneva at the beginning of 1974. At this session discussion of the two Draft Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (or ICRC) was commenced. A second session of this Conference has meanwhile been held, from 3 February to 18 April 1975, and a third session is scheduled to take place from 21 April to 11 June 1976. In view of the considerable amount of work already done at the second session, and assuming that the same constructive spirit which prevailed during this session wil persist during the next, it may confidently be expected that the 1976 session will suffice, at least, to finish the work on the first reading of the Draft Protocols. This will then provide an excellent opportunity to enter into some of the more salient features of the Draft Protocols, in the light of the amendments to them brought in the course of the Diplomatic Conference.

On 26 July 1974 the International Law Commission (ILC) adopted its final draft articles on succession of States in respect of treaties and recommended that the General Assembly of the UN convene an international conference to study the draft and to conclude a convention. This terminated twelve years of work during which the ILC studied five reports of Sir Humphrey Waldock, one of Sir Francis Vallat – both Special Rapporteurs for the topic – and many observations from Member States. In December 1974 the General Assembly asked for further comments from the Member States, and deferred further discussion until its 30th session (1975).

The concept of the sovereign State is still at the core of most rules of international law. It is true that both the individual human being and the international organisation have increasingly found recognition in rules of international law as (acting) “entities” which are more than mere “creatures” of the sovereign State or States. Nevertheless, progress in both directions is slow and does not, as yet, really undermine the international system of co-existing sovereign States.

In the past few decades the quality of European rivers and lakes has deteriorated considerably as a result of the growth of population and the expansion of industrial and agricultural activities. Since pollution does not stop at State frontiers riparian States of international watercourses must cooperate in fighting it. In the course of time a number of European States have therefore agreed on treaty provisions to counteract the pollution of certain international rivers or lakes. The first of these provisions are to be found in certain fisheries agreements concluded at the end of the 19th century. Further, since the Second World War, treaties have been concluded especially for the purpose of abating pollution. However, these provisions and treaties –which have a limited geographic scope and vary in nature– have as yet not been very effective.

Under Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome the European Economic Community “shall have as its task … to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the member States belonging to it.” These purposes are to be achieved by establishing a Common Market and by progressively approximating the economic policies of the Member States.