The international law community has heavily criticized the United States’ handling of the Breard case. These criticisms are understandable. Perhaps because of the rush of time, the explanations by the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court for failing to stop Breard’s execution brushed over important issues of domestic and international law. In addition, Virginia’s decision to proceed with the execution, and the federal Government’s decision not to block it, may have reflected insufficient respect for international law and institutions. These decisions may also adversely affect U.S. relations with other nations and weaken consular protection of U.S. citizens abroad. These criticisms, however, tell only part of the story. In particular, they do not consider countervailing considerations grounded in the Constitution’s allocation of authority between the federal and state governments.

In Garcia-Mir, the district court found that prolonged detention of the undocumented aliens was, in the circumstances, “arbitrary,” and therefore a violation of international law. But it also held that even though it was in violation of international law, the courts would not order an end to the detention because it had been authorized by the Attorney General. The court of appeals affirmed.

The resolution of the General Assembly of December 14, 1955, to admit 16 countries to membership in the United Nations, marked “an event second only to the foundation of the United Nations itself,” and a decisive step towards achieving universality of membership. As the President of the Tenth Session of the Assembly, Mr. Jose Maza (Chile) put it:

By an order in council issued on the 4th of August, 1914, the British Government announced a list of articles which it proposed to treat as contraband “during the war with the German Emperor”; by an order of August 12th the first mentioned order was extended to the war with “the Emperor of Austria—King of Hungary,” and by an order of September 21st certain additions were made to the list of contraband articles published in the two preceding orders. By an order in council of October 29th the list of contraband articles in the earlier proclamations was withdrawn in consequence of the complaint of the Swedish Government that it included metallic ores, which were on the free list in the Declaration of London, and that the treatment of such articles as contraband would seriously injure Swedish trade. A new list was therefore substituted, from which ores were omitted.

There is virtual silence in the history of the international labor movement on the technique of preparing international labor conventions both before and at the Peace Conference. The developments of the last fourteen years in this field must, therefore, be listed as an unexpected evolution in international coöperation. It should have been easy to see at the end of the first International Labor Conference in 1919 that the methods of preparation were defective. That the Organizing Committee of 1919 should not have had adequate information on world labor conditions is understandable; but what is not understandable is that there was scarcely any consciousness of the magnitude of the problem before the International Labor Organization in drafting suitable labor conventions.

During the year 1938, the seventeenth year of its existence, the Permanent Court of International Justice was in active session for a total of 69 days—from April 29 to June 30; on July 13 and 14; and from November 28 to December 1. This compares with 107 days of active session in 1937, 143 days in 1936, and 107 days in 1935.

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.

The International Court of Justice, on May 28, 1948, gave an advisory-opinion concerning the conditions of admission of a state to membership in the United Nations. By nine votes to six it held:

The field of international law in general is sharply demarked from that of municipal law, but it is the individuals, composing the population of the various states and nations, who furnish the points of contact where international friction may be generated. With the claims of a citizen or subject against his own government, and its officers and agencies, international law naturally has nothing to do. But when an individual asserts a claim against a government not his own, or against the individuals who carry on its operations, such a claim falls on one side or the other of the boundary between international law and municipal law, according to whether the claimant has or has not an adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of the state against which the claim exists.