The adoption of the “Comprehensive Programme for the Further Extension and Improvement of Cooperation and the Development of Socialist Economic Integration by the CMEA Member-Countries,” to quote the document’s full title, opens a new chapter in the history of the self-styled “Socialist Commonwealth.” Two years on the drawing board, the 25,000-word encyclical is a strange mixture of ideological clichés, abstract formulations of political, economic, and juridical desiderata, projections of distant ends, references to proximate objectives, and elaborations of the concrete ways and means by which the next plateau on the road to the Communist millenium shall be reached. Approved at the 26th session of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) which met July 27-29, 1971, and subsequently ratified by the top political organs of the member states, the program enjoys locally the formal status of a multilateral treaty whose principles validly bind the CMEA partners to a general code of conduct aimed at achieving certain select goals by various designated methods. At the same time it represents a theoretical blueprint of how the leaderships of the countries concerned would like the region’s economic organism to perform in an optimal setting and how they propose to bring that situation about.

On the docket of the United States Supreme Court in 2004 is a substantial cluster of cases at the intersection of constitutional and international law. In the previous two Supreme Court Terms, the Court had adverted to sources of law and practice outside the United States, in its treatment of constitutional claims involving the death penalty and same-sex relationships. The apparent willingness of the Court to consider international and foreign authorities in reaching its conclusions on contested issues of constitutional law has raised to new promir nence the debate over the relationship between constitutional and international law. It is not yet clear whether the new (or newly rediscovered) interest of the Court in international sources presages a long-term trend toward a more cosmopolitan constitutional jurisprudence. On the assumption that this represents more than a passing fad, advocates before the Court in die current Term—for example, in the cases involving die “enemy combatant” detainees at Guantanamo Bay—have vigorously pressed arguments concerning international and foreign law in connection with the constitutional issues at stake. The Court's acceptance of quite a few cases raising a mixture of international and constitutional questions for decision in 2004 may signal that the Court is preparing for a new era of engagement with legal developments external to the United States, or, alternatively, that it seeks to limit (or in any event to delimit) the relevance of such developments for the U.S. legal system.

With a view to the systematic discussion of the questions inscribed upon its program, the membership of the conference was divided into four great committees, to each of which a related group of subjects was assigned for investigation with a view to the formulation of such stipulations as might be deemed worthy of insertion in a general convention.

The international frontier is formed by the zones where Great Power interests come together in conflict. It is the main line of structural weakness in the earth’s political crust—the main fissure where wars break through. The powers are constantly at workon the frontier trying to patch up the peace by international arrangements of various kinds.

Autocracy and Democracy are mutually antagonistic. A dictatorship, whether that of the proletariat or one established by a totalitarian state, is a menace to popular government. We have all seen in the recent past how it has shown itself a foe to liberty; to freedom of the person, freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, and hostile to religious toleration. Autocracy, relying upon force, is necessarily militaristic and readily assumes an aggressive attitude towards other forms of government.