A Judgment inter partes has two uses in subsequent proceedings: as a defence against a plaintiff whose case is inconsistent with its correctness, or as a weapon of attack against the party condemned by it. The basis of the first use is not that the judgment made any difference to the rights of the parties, still less that the pronouncement of a court, domestic or foreign, is infallible, but that, whether or not their rights are truly as declared, that declaration will not be allowed to be contradicted.

Article 55 of the United Nations Charter commits the member States to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,” recognising thus for the first time the individual as a subject of international law. This would have certainly been a very welcome step—yet we can hardly overlook the fact that very little has been done during the years since 1945, to enable the individual to enjoy this right, guaranteed by the Charter. The “Bill of Rights,” promised in 1946, is far from being completed and ripe for ratification. Rescinding a decision of its fifth session in favour of the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in the Draft Covenant of Human Rights, the General Assembly voted during its sixth session in favour of the drafting of two Covenants, one to guarantee civil and political rights and the other economic, social and cultural rights. The drafts of these two documents in the form they emerged from the ninth session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (April 7 to May 30, 1953) do not provide possibilities for the individual to petition an international authority in case of an alleged violation of the Covenant's provisions—in spite of the opinion expressed by the General Assembly at its third session in 1948, that “the right of petition is an essential human right.”

We propose here to lay before English-speaking lawyers a general survey of the rights of shareholders in that form of société, which is described in continental law as société anonyme, compagnie anonyme or société par actions; and we shall endeavour to do it in a way which will be easily understood by “common” lawyers. We shall be considering in general continental rights, that is to say, those prevailing in the civil law countries not only of Western Europe but also of Latin America. We shall leave aside the Soviet countries, where the problems of shareholders' rights do not arise in the same way as under the so-called capitalist régimes; it may even be said that in fact there are no sociétés anonymes there with private capital and therefore these problems do not arise in practice. We shall also disregard the law of the United States of America, which lies within the common law framework and is more accessible to English lawyers.

The OEEC meeting in Paris in March, 1952, was a turning point for the organisation. Its original function of allocating Marshall Aid having virtually ended, the member-States have had to decide to restrict their activities to the left-over functions concerning intra-European trade and payments or to develop into an effective instrument for co-ordinating European economy.

Initially in the report of September 22, 1947, submitted to the U.S. by the Conference of the sixteen original member-States, the OEEC was described as temporary and limited to the four-year period of U.S. help. In its constitution, however, the elaboration and execution of a joint recovery programme is considered to be only “an immediate task.” The chief aim of the organisation is to be the “achievement of a sound European economy through the economic co-operation of its members” —and this is certainly a function of a permanent character. The general undertaking of the signatories to “work in close co-operation in their economic relations with one another” also suggests a more permanent association.

At the decisive meeting of March 29, 1952, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler, declared that it was on OEEC foundations “that we must build and rely for the future.” He also expressed the view that it was more imperative than ever that Europe should resolutely devise collective measures of self-help.

After a review of the new position, the following three primary purposes have been named for keeping the organisation alive: — (1) to raise European production, (2) to eliminate external trade deficits, particularly with the dollar zone, and (3) to help stabilise the internal finances of member-States.