I come here with two hats on, one of Edward Martin, who was unable to be here, and the other is my own, which is that of one straight out of law school and practicing only for a few months.

Mr. Martin asked me to impress upon you the fact that it is very difficult to practice transnational law without fully understanding the culture and the laws of the foreign nation with which you are dealing. It is difficult to sit in New York and keep current with the law and thinking and certain forecasting that you have to do in the practice of law.

Like Mr. Stevens, I am engaged in the practice of international corporate law. I would like to outline briefly my view of the role of the practising U.S. attorney whose clients are involved in international transactions—the “transnational lawyer.” These lawyers should be competent to give advice on the laws of more than one country and must be able to evaluate the relative legal advantages of particular business decisions as they are affected by the laws of one country or another. Typically, the transnational lawyer will represent a business enterprise in its operations abroad, or he may represent a foreign enterprise in connection with its operations in the United States. In the latter capacity, his considerations are generally no different than those of his fellow “domestic” corporate lawyer. Although the decisions of the foreign business enterprise may be affected by the laws of its domicile, the legal considerations for the U.S. attorney are usually those of any transaction occurring domestically.

Let me start by relating two points I think most Americans are in agreement about at this time: the first is a widely shared sense of relief that includes both critics and supporters of our earlier policy that the direct American combat role in Vietnam at least is apparently over, and that American forces, both prisoners of war and ground troops, have been repatriated and withdrawn. It must be understood that this point of initial agreement is not so substantial if considered more closely.

The topic assigned to us today is “The Justness of the Peace.” I take it from what Mr. Falk has said that he thinks the peace is unjust because it involves support for the Thieu regime, which he regards as cruel and unjust. He discussed various shortcomings of that regime from the point of view of democratic theory without comparing it in these respects to its rival in North Vietnam.

At the request of the President, the members rose and observed a moment of silence in memory of those members who had died during the past year.

The President announced that the Executive Council, on the recommendation of the Committee on Annual Awards, had decided that the Certificate of Merit be awarded to Cyril E. Black and Richard A. Falk for their four-volume work The Future of the International Legal Order.

It is a custom of this Society to allow its President each year a few moments for his say. On occasion, this has thrown up gems for thought, such as Harold Lasswell’s essay of a year ago. Today may be a different matter. But tradition must be served.

There is really nothing one could add to the patent for this organization which Professor Lasswell laid down last year. So I propose a few reflections about the broader topic of the new world politics, and what it may mean for our chosen calling, of which this Society is, of course, the central professional institution.

It is fair to say that this Society at this juncture is in good shape, not least because of the constant care that Bill Rogers, as President, has given to Society affairs in matters large and small and the great skill he has brought to their disposition.

Our membership seems to be on an undulating plateau. We have gained about 100 members since last year, but the composition of our membership has shifted somewhat and in a way that is disquieting, disquieting at least insofar as it represents a drop in income. While we have had a gain in nonresident membership, and that is a happy thing, and in student membership and have about managed to break even, with some effort, in our regular membership, we have lost a number of professional members, those persons members of the bar for more than ten years. They pay the highest dues, which are by no means high relative to those of other professional associations.

The Society has three separate kinds of research and study activities. The largest component of the program is in the form of research and study panels and the various working groups which these panels form for the pursuit of particular projects. As of the end of the year with which we are concerned, 17 panels were in operation at various stages of their life span, and some eight working groups. Two or three panels were phased out and two or three new panels created so that the numerical level of activity over the year remained about the same.

I take great pleasure in welcoming you to the Society’s Annual Dinner. The fact that we are all here tonight is a kind of collective rejection of the view a cynical friend of mine suggested the other day: that the practice of international law is analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If you are wondering how an old politician from Mississippi gets himself caught in this situation, sandwiched between an introduction by Tom Farer and a major speech by Hardy Dillard, I am even more puzzled than you are.

I deeply appreciate the warmth of the introduction and have been trying to think of appropriate replies to all the kind things Tom has said. As to Tom’s reference to my modesty, I recall that when Winston Churchill was told that Clement Attlee was a modest man, his retort was: “What does he have to be modest about?”

Mr. Chairman, President Rogers, Professor McDougal, Judge Hack-worth, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen: When Steve Schwehel called me up over long distance I was peacefully having supper at the Promenade Hotel in The Hague. He asked me if I would quickly pinch-hit for Manfred Lachs, who had accepted but was laid low by illness. I accepted in a mood of exuberant indiscretion. I did not know then that my good friend, Myres McDougal, would steal most of the time theoretically allocated for what is called the major address of the evening. However, I forgive him because of his gracious allusion to Mrs. Dillard. This is the kind of thing we Southerners indulge in with the grace and respect for the amenities for which we are renowned.