The notes of protest which the United States, the United Kingdom, and France sent to the Danube Commission governments on November 15, 1949, were answered by the Soviet Union on March 9, 1950, and by Bulgaria on March 28, 1950. Both governments rejected the western protests, the Soviet note commenting that the Danube Commission's Convention of August 18, 1948, eliminated the injuristices of previous international waterways concepts and established the jurisdiction of the riparian states. The note added that the Soviet government would not consider the protests registered by Belgium, Italy and Greece since they were not members of the Danube River Commission under the previous navigational treaty of 1921.

In his Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 16 June 1965–15 June 1966 Secretary-General U Thant observed that the year under review had been a period in which the prospects for the peace and well-being of mankind suffered disappointments which seemed to outweigh once again the modest gains made in some directions. Describing the international political situation, Mr. Thant said that the cloud over Vietnam had grown larger and more ominous. The serious open conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir had calmed, but tensions had been heightened and violence had erupted elsewhere. Nuclear as well as conventional armaments developed apace. Furthermore, comparatively little happened during the year to brighten the outlook of those who occupied the two-thirds of the world where poverty, disease, ignorance, and lack of opportunity were the most conspicuous facts of daily life. Generally speaking, during this period the powerful nations did not show themselves able to overcome the suspicions, fears, and mistrust that sprang from their different ideologies and from their different conceptions of the best interests of the rest of the world; the rich nations did not rise above their concern for the continuation of their own prosperity, nor did the poor nations escape from the dead weight of their chronic poverty and their anachronistic social structures. Against such a background the international community, still incompletely represented by the United Nations, made only limited progress in those areas such as peacekeeping, disarmament, economic and social development, decolonization, and human rights where most was expected of it.

In his report to the 36th session of the International Labor Conference the Director-General (Morse) selected the problem of productivity as a special theme for emphasis and debate. Mr. Morse wrote that since 1950 the need for higher productivity had become steadily more apparent, that a great deal of the work of the International Labor Organization had always impinged on the problem of productivity, and that during the last four years he had increasingly stressed the need to extend and intensify ILO's work on this problem. He urged the delegates to the conference to do what they could “to secure a wide-spread comprehension and acceptance of the need for higher productivity and of the ways in which it can be achieved.” Three main ways in which the resources needed to raise the living standards of the less well-to-do section of the community might be made available were: 1) a larger proportion of total output of wealth might be distributed to wages and social services at the expense of recipients of other income; 2) where there was less than full employment, an increase in wealth could be achieved by bringing all available resources into employment; and 3) total output might be increased by securing a larger output per unit of resources already in employment. Mr. Morse believed that the most essential conditions under which higher productivity would yield an increase in welfare were: a) that there should be the fullest possible consultation and cooperation between employers and workers in the application of measures to raise productivity, b) that the benefits of higher productivity should be fairly distributed, c) that effective action should be taken to ensure that higher productivity did not lead to unemployment, and d) that higher productivity should be sought by means which only required of workers a working speed and intensity which they could maintain without increased fatigue, strain, or risk to health or safety.

Since the signing and ratification of the treaties establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), there has been renewed interest in the organization which pioneered die European effort toward economic integration under supra-national institutions. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) commemorates this year two anniversaries which are of more dian usual significance. February 10 and May 1, 1958, mark die completion of die first five years of die common market for coal and iron ore, and for steel and scrap, respectively. February 10 also marks die end of die “period of transition” provided by die treaty to cushion die impact of competidon on weak industries and to facilitate their adaptation to die conditions of the common market. During this period, some member countries were authorized to continue certain customs duties (e.g., on Italian imports of coke and steel), subsidies (e.g., for Lorraine coal and coke), and odier protective devices; and in some cases, provision was made for financial assistance by the Community itself (e.g., in favor of coal mines in Belgium and Sardinia). But unlike the escape clauses included in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), diese exemptions and supports were limited to five years, widi die possibility, in some cases, of a further extension of two years. Also during this period, measures were to be taken to eliminate discriminatory practices and to harmonize the conditions of competition, particularly in transport, and a common tariff was to be worked out vis-à-vis non-member countries.

The sixteenth annual report of the Executive Directors of the International Monetary Fund for the fiscal year ending April 30, 1961, was transmitted to the Chairman of the Board of Governors on June 23, 1961, by Mr. Per Jacobsson, Chairman of the Executive Board. The report stated that in contrast to the year 1959, when virtually all countries had participated in world-wide expansion, the year 1960 and early part of 1961 had presented a less unified picture. For the world as a whole, the expansionary elements had considerably outweighed the contractionary elements. World industrial production, excluding the countries of the Soviet area, had been almost 6 percent greater in 1960 than in 1959, having grown by 10 percent; and the value of world trade had increased by 12 percent, compared with 6 percent in 1959. The stimulus for the rise in world trade had come predominantly from the booming European industrial countries and from Japan, which had increased their imports by nearly 20 percent; there had been a slight decline in imports from the United States and Canada. The imports of the less-industrialized countries had also increased considerably, by some 10 percent. Trade developments during 1960 had improved the basic international payments situation in some respects. Rising exports and slightly declining imports caused an increase in the surplus of private goods and services account in the United States. West Germany's surplus also increased, while France's remained stationary; decreases had been noted in several other industrial countries, in particular Japan and Italy, where the rate of economic expansion had been exceptionally high, and in the United Kingdom, mainly due to the sharp growth of imports associated with their high level of economic activity.

On March 5, 1970, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) went into effect, having been ratified by 47 states including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The treaty legally bars these three nuclear powers from transferring atomic weapons to nonnuclear states and formally pledges those nonnuclear states signing the treaty to refrain from developing such weapons or acquiring them from other powers. It thus caps a long effort by the United States to inhibit—so long as it could not preclude—the spread of nuclear weapons and to avoid the potential instabilities associated with that spread.

With this issue, the editorial offices of International Organization (IO) move from the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University in the United States to the Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto in Canada. For the past five years, Lisa Martin has done an outstanding job in leading the journal to its current top-ranked position in the field. As editor-in-chief, Lisa was assisted not only by Rebecca Webb, an excellent managing editor, but also by two superb associate editors, Thomas Risse from the Free University in Berlin and Beth Yarbrough from Amherst College. We are grateful to them all for their hard work and dedication.

The fourth regular session of the General Assembly opened at Flushing Meadows, New York, on September 20, 1949. The Assembly was to consider an agenda of 68 items, including the annual reports of the three United Nations Councils, the Secretary-General, and subsidiary bodies; and special reports from commissions operating in Korea, Palestine and the Balkans. Other topics for discussion were the disposition of the Italian Colonies, Indonesia, the situation in China, atomic energy, creation of a United Nations Field Service, economic development of under-developed areas, freedom of information, Southwest Africa, information from non-self-governing territories, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania.

If the United Nations system is to outlaw the unilateral use of force, except in cases of self-defense, it is clear that some provision must be made for the peaceful settlement of disputes and for peaceful change. In the past, peacekeeping operations have often succeeded in restoring a fragile peace. Yet collective actionall too frequently has been limited to a restoration of the status quo ante. Indeed, states have usuallyfailed to accept any collective responsibility to deal with the grievances that initially led to the outbreak of hostilities. If peace is to be maintained over any extended period of time, peacekeeping operations must not, asAmbassador Arthur J. Goldberg recently warned, “be a sofa to provide a comfortable respite from efforts atpeaceful settlement” but instead should “be a springboard for accelerated efforts to eliminate the root causes of conflict.”

In the sixteen years since the United Nations on the invitation of the United States established its principal headquarters in New York, there have been remarkably few incidents and little publicity in connection with the immunities and privileges of Members' representatives. This is no doubt due not to the clarity or quality of the relevant juridical instruments but to the tact and understanding of all concerned: the United Nations and more particularly its Secretaries-General, the representatives of the Member States and in a very large measure the Department of State and the United States Mission to the United Nations. It was the violent reaction of Chairman N. S. Khrushchev, attending the fifteenth session of the General Assembly as head of the Soviet Union delegation, against the restrictions imposed upon his movements in the United States by the Department of State which drew attention to the question of the rights and privileges of delegations to the United Nations. For the first time the head of the delegation of a great power and a permanent member of the Security Council was subjected to such restrictions. Speaking in the General Assembly, Mr. Khrushchev referred to “the various restrictions of the rights of representatives of States in the United Nations” and the “instances … of the representatives of young African and Asian States being subjected to racial discrimination.” He raised the question “whether or not thought should be given to the choice of another location for the United Nations Headquarters which would better facilitate the effective work of this international organization.”The nature and extent of these restrictions will be discussed below but it may be well to begin with a survey and analysis of the bewildering array of instruments which govern this matter.

A regular meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of the member states of the Warsaw Pact was held in Moscow on March 28 and 29, 1961, according to press reports. Heads of government and military and political leaders of the eight member states were present, although there was considerable comment in the press when Albania sent Deputy Premier Begir Balluku instead of General Enver Hoxha, First Secretary of the Albanian Communist Party. Communist China sent as an observer Liu Hsiao, Ambassador to Moscow. The Council on Mutual Economic Aid of the pact reportedly disclosed a new economic plan at the conference that called for the voluntary coordination of member nations' economic schemes and prospects for a twentyyear period through 1980. The project was to constitute a new form of international cooperation that would be the prototype for the economic relations of the future communist society. The Warsaw Pact nations also reportedly discussed military matters, including the situation in Germany.

The General Council of the International Refugee Organization held its eighth session October 23 to 27, 1951 at Geneva. The Council reviewed the annual report of the Director-General for the period July 1, 1950 to June 30, 1951 in which Mr. Kingsley summarized the activities and achievements of IRO since its inception, defined the migration trends for the previous year, and discussed methods being employed to transfer IRO functions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Allied High Commission for Germany, and to voluntary groups and local authorities. In a supplementary report on residual problems Mr. Kingsley emphasized the serious refugee problems in Greece, Trieste, Austria, Italy, China, and Korea which would survive the organization's closure early in 1952 despite the substantial completion of IRO activities by that time. He reported that 573 ‘institutional hard core’ cases were being resettled and 1,514 locally resettled but pointed out a lack in satisfactory arrangement for 477 hard core cases in Shanghai, Samar, Greece, and Spain, while particularly emphasizing the need to make intensive efforts to resettle the 398 cases in Shanghai and 900 additional cases in Trieste. Although the Council agreed to delay its communication on residual problems to the United Nations until its next session pending further information on Trieste and Shanghai, it approved a decision first to assist the 477 hard core cases, then to apportion expenditures equally between material assistance and resettlement. At the close of this report on residual problems Mr. Kingsley announced the favorable outcome of the shipping program and satisfactory arrangements with the ‘institutional hard core’, permitting resettlement of 9,000 additional refugees before closure.

The European Parliament met in Strasbourg on February 5–6, 1963. The session opened with a statement by Mr. Robert Marjolin, French vice-president of the European Economic Community (EEC) Commission, on the economic situation of the Community. Provided that there was no slump in any important country outside the Six, Mr. Marjolin said that satisfactory economic growth was to be expected within the Community during 1963. He forecast that the rising costs of consumer goods would slacken then level off in the present year.

During September and October 1958 the Permanent Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) discussed the question of Cyprus. On September 24, the Council heard M. Paul-Henri Spaak, Secretary-General of NATO, describe his visit on September 23 to Athens, where he had discussed problems connected with Cyprus with the Greek Prime Minister. His consultation had centered on a United Kingdom plan whereby there would be a seven-year partnership in Cyprus to provide a quiet atmosphere and proper conditions under which to work out a final solution; the plan had received the support of the Turks but not of the Greeks. M. Spaak proposed to the Council the calling of a conference in which the Greek, Turkish, and United Kingdom governments and representatives of the Greek Cypriot and Tyrkish Cypriot communities would take part.

The International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) was notified in Demember 1962 that, due to the Chinese invasion and the consequent national emergency, India could not host the fifteenth Universal Postal Congress which had been scheduled to open on March 1, 1963, in New Delhi. On January 17, 1963, the Director of the International Bureau, Mr. Weber, received from the Austrian government an official invitation to hold the fifteenth Congress in Vienna in June 1964.