Sixty-six aircraft of United States or foreign registration were hijacked from January 1, 1961 through 1968; 277 aircraft of U.S. or foreign registration were hijacked from January 1, 1969 through 1972; nine aircraft of foreign registration, and none of U.S. registration, were hijacked in the first eight months of 1973. Inherent in these figures is an evolution in the nature of the offense and an intensification of rigor in the national and international response to the offense, as well as the emergence of certain legal and political problems as yet unresolved. At the same time, the dramatic decline in hijacking between January and August 31, 1973 should be greeted with caution, not euphoria, lest there be a regression to the condition of national and international complacency about aircraft hijacking which obtained up to 1968.

All humanitarian action takes place in a political context, and has, therefore, a political content. This means that all “humanitarian” organizations, such as those operating under the sig of the Red Cross, have a duty to define a humanitarian policy which will be valid in the long term, based on a thorough analysis of the political context, the main characteristics of an epoch, the political societies of our time, and the world political system. Such a humanitarian policy entails in turn the development of a humanitarian strategy which is distinct from the tactical moves imposed by varying crises. Neglect of this work of reflection leads to contradiction and confusion and, worse still, the degradation of humanitarian action to the level of a political instrument.

In the July 1973 issue of the Journal, there appeared an article with the above title written by Professor Richard Falk, in which he, in effect, advanced the thesis that the release of prisoners of war for repatriation during the course of hostilities in Vietnam to an ad hoc and self-styled “humanitarian organization” (which admittedly consisted solely of individuals who were vocal opponents of the United States participation in those hostilities) either constituted a valid and forward-looking interpretation of the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereinafter referred to as “the 1949 Convention”) or indicated the need for revision of that instrument. The subject appears to be one which calls for an analysis in considerably greater depth than the treatment provided in the article by Professor Falk.

The complex process surrounding the nationalization of the copper industry in Chile has raised numerous important questions and engendered conflicting claims about principles and standards required by international law in property takings affecting the interests and rights of aliens. The purpose of this article is to examine, in an objective fashion, some of these questions and claims with particular reference to well-established precedents and contemporary doctrines in this problematic area of international law. Such an attempt at objectivity is not easy since the Chilean nationalization involves necessarily disparate notions about the right to property and its protection under municipal and international law.

Before the Peoples Republic of China [PRC] was officially proclaimed on September 21, 1949, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party had proclaimed that the acts and foreign agreements of the Republic of China which resulted in the exploitation of China by foreigners were “completely contrary to the will of the Chinese people” and would not be honored. Although certain actions by the Chinese Communists indicated as early as February, 1949 that property owned by the U.S. Government and its nationals would be treated unfavorably by the new regime, no concerted steps were taken by the PRC against U.S. property until the United States had already placed an “embargo” on American trade with China. Only after Chinese troops had entered Korea and the U.S. Government had blocked and frozen all Chinese assets within its jurisdiction did the PRC freeze all public and private property of the United States in the PRC and order that an inventory of it be made. The PRC “assumed control of all U.S. property in China under a decree issued on December 29, 1950. ”