1 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (Jurisdiction), Judgment of July 22, 1952, [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 112.

2 3 U. S. Foreign Eelations (1920) 260–291; 2 ibid. (1921) 528–547; 3 ibid. (1928) 375–407; 3 ibid. (1929) 540–548; and Beed, “Standard Oil in Indonesia, 1898–1928,” The Business History Beview 311–337 (1958).

3 2 U. S. Foreign Eelations (1924) 692–694.

4 See, by way of example, 1913 U. S. Foreign Eelations 594–607.

5 International Law Commission, International Eesponsibility, Eeport by F. V. Garcia-Amador, Special Rapporteur, U.N. Doc. No. A/CN.4/96, pp. 51, 58.

6 Official Gazette of the United Kingdom of Libya, Vol. V, No. 4, June 19, 1955, Law No. 25 of 1955. It may be added that, even were the alien not a subject of international law, he could contract with reference to it.

7 See, for criticism of this view, Eeport of the Committee on Nationalization of Property, Proceedings and Committee Reports of the American Branch of the International Law Association, 1957–1958, pp. 70–71.

8 See Losinger & Co. Case, P.C.I.J., Series C, No. 78, pp. 7–9, 40, 129–132, 156–160, 269, 309–310, 346, and Series A/B, No. 69, p. 101; Socifite Commerciale de Belgique Case, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 78, and Series C, No. 87, pp. 13, 74; Judge Hudson's comments on these cases, International Tribunals 189, 190 (1944); I.C.J. Pleadings, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case, pp. 31, 122–123, 365, 501; I.C.J. Pleadings, “Electricité de Beyrouth” Company Case, pp. 14, 58, and [1954] I.C.J. Rep. 107; I.C.J. Pleadings, Case Concerning the “Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepots de Beyrouth” and the “Société Radio-Orient,” Application Instituting Proceedings, p. 15; and op. cit. footnote 7 above, p. 75, note 25.

9 Carlston, “Concession Agreements and Nationalization,” 52 A.J.I.L. 260 ff. (1958).

10 Dunn, The Protection of Nationals 165–167, 171 (1932). See, in support of the Dunn thesis, op. cit. footnote 7 above, pp. 68–73; Wadmond, “The Sanctity of Contract between a Sovereign and a Foreign National,” American Bar Association, Section of Mineral and Natural Eesources Law, 1957 Proceedings 177 ff., and International Fisheries Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, 4 Reports of International Arbitral Awards 691, 699–700.

11 Loc. cit. 87.

12 The Alsing Trading Company, Ltd. and the Swedish Match Company v. The Greek State, Award of December 22, 1954; Schwebel, “The Alsing Case,” 8 Int. and Comp. Law Quarterly 320, 344 (1959).

13 Contributors to the Pennsylvania Hospital v. City of Philadelphia et al, 245 U. S. 20 (1917) ; Galveston Wharf Company et al. v. City of Galveston et al, 260 U. S. 473 (1923); Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell et al, 290 U. S. 398 (1934).

14 Perry v. United States, 294 U. S. 330, 351, 353 (1934). See also Lynch v. United States, 292 U. S. 571, 579 (1934), which, while affirming the United States to be bound by its contracts, endeavors to reconcile cases such as Blaisdell by holding that the United States is not constitutionally barred from annulling contracts where “the action taken falls within the federal police power or some other paramount power.”

15 I.C.J. Pleadings, United Nations Administrative Tribunal, p. 89 (quoting from a session of the Finance Committee of the 21st Assembly of the League of Nations, April 13, 1946).

16 Robertson v. Minister of Pensions, [1948] 2 All B. R. 767, 770.

17 Arbitration between Saudi Arabia and the Arabian American Oil Company, Award of August 23, 1958, pp. 50–53, 112–113 (unpublished).

18 Ibid. 50–51.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid. 54–57, 90, 101–102, 109–110.

21 Ibid. 61. See also pp. 87, 100, 101–102, 109–110, 125.

22 Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzdw (Claim for Indemnity, Merits), Series A, No. 17, p. 47. See also I.C.J. Pleadings, The Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd., Application Instituting Proceedings, p. 37.

23 See, in this connection, Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community 270 ff. (1933).

24 Loc. cit. 265.