1 See statement on uses of the term “Commonwealth” in Commonwealth Relations Office Tear Book, 1966, p. 1.

2 Some selected features of the general relationship are examined in Robert R. Wilson (ed.), The International Law Standard and Commonwealth Developments (1966), passim.

3 Volume cited in note 8 below, p. 187.

4 A. B. Keith, Imperial Unity and the Dominions 175, 299 (1916).

5 Ex parte Markwald, [1918] 1 K.B. 617; Ex parte Lan You Pat, 9 N.S.W. Rep. 269. See criticism of such rulings, in E. P. W. Gey van Pittius, Nationality within the British Commonwealth of Nations 207, 210 (1930). On the policy involved, see also Paul Knaplund, The British Empire, 1815-1939 at 715 (1942).

6 See W. P. M. Kennedy and H. J. Scholsberg, The Law and Custom of the South African Constitution 39 (1935). The authors point out that the office of High Commissioner in and for South Africa was created by letters patent in 1878, and that in the following year there was an appointment of a second high commissioner, who was assigned to South Eastern Africa, the assignment including Zululand. The commission is in Command Papers, 1881, Vol. 66, p. 137.

7 Sir Alexander Gait, High Commissioner from Canada to England, had been designated by the Canadian Government, with the consent of the Imperial Government, as High Commissioner and Representative Agent. He was apparently empowered to discuss with the Imperial authorities legal questions relative to the defenses and territory. See Alpheus Todd, Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies 234-238 (2nd ed., 1894).On the subject of representation, see also New Zealand, Pari. Pap., Sess. II, 1879, D.3.

8 On some recent developments with respect to the substitution of a more modern system of rendition, see W.B. Hamilton, Kenneth Robinson and C.D.W. Goodwin (eds.), A Decade of the Commonwealth, 1955-1964, pp. 185-186 (1965).

9 Lionel Curtis, The Problem of the Commonwealth 4 (1916).

10 J.B. Condliffe, ‘ ‘ The Attitude of New Zealand on Imperial and Foreign Affairs,'’ in Great Britain and the Dominions, Harris Foundation Lectures, 1927, at pp. 364-365.

11 ‘ ‘ Cross-questioning of a representative section of the population then showed that over half were unable to recall one single colony by name, that three-quarters did not know the difference between colonial and dominion status, and that 3 per cent thought America was still a colony.” The Times (London), June 22, 1949, p. 4.

12 Address to the two Houses of the British Parliament, May 15, 1917. See also V. Kenneth Johnston, , “Dominion Status in International Law,” 21 A.J.I.L. 481-489 (1927)Google Scholar.

13 12 & 13 Geo. 5, c. 4, p. 1.

14 On the elasticity of conventions and the use of old forms under new conditions, see W. M. Hughes, The Splendid Adventure 47, 48 (1929). On some of the new factors with which new African states are identified as Commonwealth members, see 0.W. Newberry, The West African Commonwealth, passim (1964).

15 L. Oppenheim, International Law 211 (8th ed., 1955). There is reference (p. 212) to the utility of British practice, but as a matter of constitutional and national importance rather than of wider utility.

16 See J.E.S. Fawcett, The Inter Se Doctrine in Commonwealth Relations (1958), and the same writer's discussion of changes from such rules in The British Common wealth and International Law (1963). In the latter volume the author emphasizes, inter alia, that non-discrimination in racial matters has come to be a requisite for Commonwealth membership.

17 See, generally, Brinley Thomas, ‘ ‘ The Evolution of the Sterling Area and Its Prospects,” in Nicholas Mansergh et al., Commonwealth Perspectives 175-207 (1958); and J. S. G. Wilson, “The Changing Bole of Sterling,” in volume cited in note 8 above, pp. 503-526.

18 Robert B. Wilson, and Robert E. Clute, , “Commonwealth Citizenship and Common Status,” 57 A.J.I.L. 566-587 (1963)Google Scholar.

19 On the first two types of conferences to be mentioned in the present comment, see the three-volume compilation by Maurice Ollivier (ed.), The Colonial and Imperial Conferences from 1887 to 1937 (1954).

20 Cd. 3404, p. 5.

21 Ibid., p. 6.

22 Cd. 3523, p. 600.

23 Cd. 8566. On the point in development that had been reached by the early postwar period, see Hughes’ speech at the (1921) Conference on status of the dominions, Cmd. 1474, at pp. 22-23. A discussion of the nature and utility of conferences is in the same document at pp. 11-39.

24 Cmd. 2768, at p. 14.

25 For a brief comment on matters considered at this conference, see 32 A.J.I.L. 335- 339 (1938). 1966]

26 See statement in Commonwealth Relations Office List, 1955, at p. 76.

27 On the situation in Great Britain at the beginning of the launching of the Marshall Plan, see Robert H. Ferrell, George C. Marshall as Secretary of State 100 (1966).

28 See list of these as reported at the Prime Ministers’ Conference of 1964, British Information Service, Final Communiqué Reference and Library Division T. 18 (July 16, 1964), and comment in 59 A.J.I.L. 570-573 (1965).

29 New York Times, May 23, 1966, p. 10.

30 Illustrated in Prime Minister Massey's describing as “absolute nonsense”the view that in signing the Peace Treaty the Dominions became independent nations. New Zealand, Parl. Deb., Vol. 196 (Aug. 3-Sept. 12, 1922), pp. 480-481.

31 See, generally, C.A.W. Manning, The Policies of the British Dominions in the League of Nations (1932).

32 See John M. Howell, in volume referred to in note 2 above, Ch. VIII.

33 See discussion in “Valentine Blakeney, ‘ ‘ The Commonwealth in the United Nations,” 9 Commonwealth Journal 11-12, 24 (1966).

34 On the background, including the 1960 agreements, see Thomas Ehrlich, “Cyprus, the ‘Warlike Isle': Origins and Elements of the Current Crisis,” 18 Stanford Law Review 1021-1077 (May, 1966).

35 The resolution (A/6166) was passed on Dec. 18, 1965, by a vote of 47 for (including, in addition to Cyprus, twelve Commonwealth states, all of them being in Asia, Africa, or the Caribbean) to 5 (including Pakistan), with 54 abstaining (including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Malawi).

36 On Canada's position with respect to the Organization of American States, see W. R. Irwin, , “Should Canada Join the Organization of American States!” 72 Queens Quarterly 289-303 (1965)Google Scholar; and for an opposing view, David Edward Smith, in 73 ibid. 100-114 (1966).

37 On possible advantage of Commonwealth co-operation in this field, see Alastair Buchan, in volume cited in note 8 above, at p. 206.

38 Alastair Buchan, , “Military Fabrics of the Commonwealth,” 7 Commonwealth Journal 251-258 (December, 1964)Google Scholar. 780

39 Statement as reproduced in the Year Book cited in note 1 above at p. 24.

40 See studies cited in note 16 above.

41 Cf. Herman Walker in Ch. VII of volume cited in note 2 above.

42 See Don C. Piper in Ch. IX of volume cited in note 2 above.

43 See, for example, Canadian Government practice as described in 1 External Affairs (1949) and reproduced in J. G. Castel (ed.), International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada, at 708, 710-711 (1965).

44 Arnold Smith, , “ The Commonwealth and Its Global Purpose,” 9 Commonwealth Journal 53-58, at 58 (April, 1966)Google Scholar.