Is the pessimism at present exhibited by certain scholars with regard to the current prospects of international law completely reasonable? More particularly, is it really justifiable to speak of a deterioration in the juridical methods of settling disputes between states? However disappointing the course of events may have been during the last ten years, it seems that certain evaluations, inspired by nostalgia for the past, to some extent lose sight of factual conditions which have always, in different degrees, limited the role of law in the solution of international conflicts. It is useful to recall such conditions at a time when excessive discouragement has succeeded unreasonable expectations.

Since the end of the first World War, the predominant concern of international lawyers, as of statesmen and politicians, has been the horizontal widening of universal international law in a limited but vital sphere: the establishment and strengthening of inter-state covenants and international organizations which would eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the danger of increasingly destructive wars among the nations, by substituting for the traditional privileges of national sovereignty, i.e., war, reprisals and other acts of force applied at the discretion of the national states, covenants of restraint and methods of peaceful settlement.

The United Nations functions in the main by persuasion rather than by coercion. The persuasive influence of its resolutions are powerful in proportion as they have the opinion of governments and peoples behind them, but the mobilization of such an opinion depends in no small degree upon the conviction of all the Members that resolutions are within the competence of United Nations organs. That competence is measured by the concept of domestic jurisdiction. The sentiment of nationalism is such that if many states believe a resolution directed toward a particular state constitutes an intervention in matters which are essentially within its domestic jurisdiction, the state addressed and other states may so resent the resolution that its effect, far from mobilizing world public opinion, will tend to disintegrate the United Nations.

In this article, which presents an outline of the interesting and important problem of individuals as subjects of international law, special attention will be devoted to an original experiment in the field of public international law. This experiment was carried out on behalf of the Principal Allied Powers after the first World War in the territory of Upper Silesia, which is one of the largest coal, steel, zinc, lead and chemical-producing industrial centers in Europe.

During the discussion of the United Nations resolution “Uniting for Peace” (hereafter called “Resolution”), many arguments were advanced for and against the Resolution. Opposing interpretations of the Charter and quotations from authorities in international law were amply used to prove the assertions of each side. It seems to be useful to make a systematic survey of the principal legal questions involved, taking duly into account the arguments set forth during the discussion of the Resolution.

With the preparations for the 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year much in evidence, the long-standing dispute over the Antarctic shifts into a new phase. The preliminaries are nearly over. All of the nations seriously involved in the area are now in training for the exploratory and political (if not the legal) main events. In this study the lesser known Argentine and Chilean claims in the “American Quadrant” (0° to 90° West Longitude) will be given particular consideration, although the general legal propositions may be applied to the entire region. The purpose will be to set forth the major developments, the applicable law, and to suggest possible solutions, including those looked upon as more “political” than legal.

The Antarctic Continent, with its wind- and snow-swept islands, appears at first sight an uninviting prize for international competition. Yet in the past fifty years, and notably after the second World War, claims and counterclaims to sovereignty over these bleak lands have been numerous. In a chronological order Soviet Bussia is considered to be the most recent among the rivals.

Arbitral Commission. March 6, 1956.

After the International Court of Justice held the United Kingdom under a duty to submit to arbitral decision the Ambatielos claim, this case was heard by a special arbitral commission which found in favor of the defendant United Kingdom, rejecting the Greek claim. The International Court of Justice ruled that the United Kingdom was under a duty to arbitrate only insofar as the Anglo-Greek Treaty of 1886 gave rise to the claim.