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.

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.

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 relationship between treaties and municipal law has been widely discussed in this country in recent years. The discussion, however, has been limited to the problems raised by the proposed Constitutional amendments. Thus, the possibility of a conflict between the Constitution and a treaty, or between a treaty and State law, has been debated, while the possibility of a conflict between a treaty and a Federal statute has been hardly ever mentioned.