“The trial which is now about to begin is unique in the history of the jurisprudence of the world and it is of supreme importance to millions of people all over the globe.”

The resumption of its judicial activity after a lapse of eight years was the outstanding feature of the twenty-seventh year of the World Court. A judgment rejecting a preliminary objection in the Corfu Channel Case was handed down on March 25, 1948, and the case was still pending at the close of the year. An advisory opinion on Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations was given on May 28, 1948; and late in the year the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations.

The St. Lawrence Waterway and Power Project has been one of the most controversial questions before the Congress. It was defeated as a treaty and later as an executive agreement. There are apparently too many interests which consider themselves jeopardized by the project to obtain a majority support for the scheme.

In joining the North Atlantic Treaty the United States made a momentous decision in its foreign policy. This article undertakes to analyze the rôle of the United States Senate in this historic step and to summarize the more important issues encountered.

Points 2 and 3 of the Vandenberg Resolution, considered and agreed to on June 11, 1948, stated that it was the sense of the Senate that the United States Government, by constitutional process, should particularly pursue the following objectives within the United Nations Charter:

1. (2) Progressive development of regional and other collective arrangements for individual and collective self-defense in accordance with the purposes, principles, and provisions of the Charter.

2. (3) Association of the United States, by constitutional process, with such regional and other collective arrangements as are based on continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, and as affect its national security.

Four different definitions of international law can be found in the literature. According to the narrowest of these definitions, international law is that legal order which regulates the relations between independent (sovereign) states. Thus the Permanent Court of International Justice stated in its judgment of September 7, 1927, in the Lotus case: “International Law governs relations between independent States.” But generally this definition is immediately expanded by defining international law as that legal order which governs relations between independent states and certain other sovereign communities (the Catholic Church, recognized belligerents). Brandweiner uses an even wider definition. He considers that international law includes also the legal rules governing the relations between states and other ecclesiastical communities as well as the relations of the different Churches inter se.

The effort of the delegate from Argentina to press the admission of certain states into the United Nations despite the negative vote of one of the five permanent members of the Security Council was denounced by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Poland, Belgium, Pakistan, The Netherlands, and France as being contrary to the provisions of the Charter in the discussion on the adoption of the agenda during the Third Session of the General Assembly. These states held that even discussion of such an item by the Assembly was illegal.

The failure of the United Nations Organization to promote cooperation among its members in solving urgent international problems is a disappointing feature of the post-war world and compares unfavorably with the opening stages of the League of Nations activities, which were marked by a will to cooperation among the members and considerable success in resolving outstanding international problems. The reasons for this failure may be manifold, but it would seem that among them there is also a want of agreement on some basic concepts which are essential for the normal functioning of the Organization. As the main task of the Organization is the development of cooperation among nations according to the proclaimed principles for the achievement of the avowed aims, it appears to be indispensable that among the nations there exist a broad agreement on concepts which are not only essential for the understanding and observance of the purposes and principles of the Organization, but also of importance in determining mutual relations among the member states themselves. These would be the concepts of the state, law and sovereignty, which form the basis of every international order. It must, however, be admitted that there exists no agreement on these concepts among the members of the Organization, ft is just there that the rift between East and West manifests itself in a conspicuous way, and deprives the Organization of an essential prerequisite for successful functioning.

Intergovernmental organizations are frequently confronted with questions concerning the recognition of states and governments. This essay deals with the principles and practices concerning recognition by major intergovernmental organizations in the light of the related rules and practices of the League of Nations, the Inter-American System and the United Nations.

The recent Kasenkina and Samarin affairs, which led to a breach of consular relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, have raised a number of legal issues relating to the status of foreign consular officials. The legal principles involved, however, have been beclouded by widespread misunderstanding of the nature and scope of consular privileges and immunities, by obviously baseless charges made by the Soviet Government against that of the United States, and by the apparent reluctance of the latter to press to its fullest extent a sound legal case.

A peculiar and difficult nationality problem latent for decades in the relationship of American to Japanese law suddenly has emerged since the Japanese surrender in 1945. Directly involved is the nationality status of several thousands of Nisei (American-born individuals of Japanese paternity) who now are dismayed to discover that certain actions taken by them or on their behalf in the course of World War II either have seriously clouded their claims to American citizenship or have resulted in an apparently irrevocable expatriation. Stated briefly, the problem involved is that of the effect on American nationality of reacquisition of Japanese nationality obtained through a process known to Japanese law as “recovery.” In this article a description first is made of the Japanese legal institution of “recovery” and its relationship to other phases of Japanese nationality law. Consideration then is given to the application to “recoveries” of those articles and sections of the American Nationality Acts of 1907 and 1940 which deal with expatriation. In a final section, certain troublesome categories of ostensible “recoveries” as well as “recoveries” obtained during minority are examined, and various possibilities are explored for challenging the apparent loss of American nationality which has resulted.