Search

In the last few years, many proposals have been made requiring either changes in the administration and financing of the United Nations or a revision of the Charter of the United Nations. While some progress has been made in the first category of problems, to the extent that they require primarily changes in the working of the United Nations Secretariat, it became quite obvious that a revision of the Charter is not likely to be made in the near future. It may be possible, however, to achieve important changes in the functioning of the principal organs of the United Nations—the Security Council, the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice—without revision. Pending a change in the international situation, various steps can be taken in the interim that would considerably improve the functioning of these organs, and achieve some of the desirable goals by measures that, while not ideal, will provide practical solutions for a few important problems. Several such solutions are investigated in the three sections of this essay.

Too much has been written lately about the limited approach to human rights at Dumbarton Oaks, the struggle at the San Francisco Conference, and the great flowering of declarations, conventions, covenants and instruments to implement them in the last fifty years. Instead of adding another retelling of these more than twice-told tales, this essay tries to look at the origin of two less known contributions to the law of human rights-the broad nondiscrimination clause which added a more practical meaning to the vague "human rights and fundamental freedoms" phrase; and the bold addition of economic and social rights to the more traditional civil and political rights. Due credit for the second idea has to be given to the group of American and foreign international lawyers who, at the request of the American Law Institute, prepared a pioneering draft on the subject, responding to the pleas of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for a "second bill of rights," and defining more precisely the concept of "freedom from want." Indirectly, this essay also pays due homage to President Roosevelt, who died in April 1945, fifty years ago. His repeated insistence, after his "Four Freedoms" speech in 1941, on the importance of human rights as a crucial remedy against dictatorships and wars stimulated others to fight for inclusion of the idea in the Charter that "the creation of conditions of stability and well-being" is necessary for "peaceful and friendly relations among nations." Many human rights activists forget that the Charter considers human rights as a part of a closely related trio of objectives that also include "higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development," as well as "solutions of international, economic, social, health and related problems," including "international cultural and educational cooperation." That this linkage was not accidental, but had much deeper roots, is explained, in part, in this essay. Prior to 1940, international lawyers were seldom interested in protecting human rights as such. They dealt primarily with defending the rights of foreigners, citizens of one state injured in another state, and in the 1920-1939 period, they also became interested in the rights of minorities. Dozens of eminent international lawyers participated in and wrote long briefs for the case of the Hungarian Optants in Rumania, whose agrarian properties were expropriated in the Rumanian land reform, and whose claims were considered by both the Council of the League of Nations and an arbitral tribunal.' It was a surprise to the international legal community in the United States when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt raised the issue of human rights in his Four Freedoms speech, in which he emphasized not only the freedoms of speech and religion, but also "freedom from want," which would "secure to every nation a healthy peacetime

This paper analyzes the legal implications of the Draft Resolution and Draft Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, as well as the effectiveness of the proposed arrangements under international law.

The question of voting procedure in international conferences convoked to codify international law has been discussed for more than a hundred years, starting with the first Geneva Red Cross Conference in 1864. At the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 important departures were made from the unanimity rule in favor of near-unanimity or quasi-unanimity. Further steps toward a two-thirds rule were taken by the League of Nations in connection with the Hague Codification Conference of 1930. The question arose anew when the first United Nations conferences were held, and in particular as soon as the United Nations started its ambitious program for the progressive development of international law and its codification, pursuant to Article 13(1) (a) of the UN Charter.

Too little attention has been given to the remarkable development of international arbitration in the Union of International Transport by Rail. Within the limited field of this Union arbitration has been organized on a solid and continuing basis, and a permanent tribunal for the settlement of disputes has been maintained for half a century.

When Viola so informed the Clown in Twelfth Night, was she prophetic of our nice dallying today with the word boycott? Have we made it wanton in applying it to foreign affairs? Let us see.

1.A State is internationally responsible for an act or omission which, under international law, is wrongful, is attributable to that State, and causes an injury to an alien. A State which is responsible for such an act or omission has a duty to make reparation therefor to the injured alien or an alien claiming through him, or to the State entitled to present a claim on behalf of the individual claimant.2. (a)An alien is entitled to present an international claim under this Convention only after he has exhausted the local remedies provided by the State against which the claim is made.(b) A State is entitled to present a claim under this Convention only on behalf of a person who is its national, and only if the local remedies and any special international remedies provided by the State against which the claim is made have been exhausted.

When the representatives of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States met at Yalta in February, 1945, the Soviet delegation raised the question of giving separate representation in the Assembly of the United Nations to the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The United States delegation agreed to support this claim at San Francisco, but reserved the right of the United States to put in a similar claim for three votes for itself and its possessions. The Soviet delegation raised no objection to the latter claim and the British delegation agreed to support both claims. No agreement was reached at the time with respect to the question of the participation of the two Soviet Republics at the San Francisco Conference itself. When the Yalta agreement was disclosed at the end of March objections were raised in different quarters against the principle of plural votes itself and very vehemently against the secrecy attached to the agreement. In order to pour some oil on the troubled waters the Government of the United States announced that the United States would not request for itself additional votes in the General Assembly. The United States delegation was directed, however, to cast the vote of the United States in favor of the admission of the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Republics and on April 27, 1945, the San Francisco Conference unanimously invited these Republics to become initial members of the United Nations. On April 30, 1945, it permitted them to take seats at the Conference immediately. The delegates of these republics at the Conference generally voted with the Soviet delegation but in a few instances their votes diverged. One might recall in that connection that while in the early days of the League of Nations the British Dominions followed quite closely the lead of the British delegation, twenty-five years later, at San Francisco, the British delegation found the Dominions sometimes among its most bitter opponents. It is quite possible that the position of the Soviet Republics might evolve along similar lines, though it might take some time.

Gaius and Charlemagne and President Truman seem to be working hand in hand across the centuries to bring about coördination of European inland waterways. Under the law of the Roman Empire such waterways, when constituting or crossing international boundaries, were free to use by all nations within the Empire. Since 1815, as we shall presently see, there have been successive organized attempts, mostly unsuccessful, to revive and apply this principle of freedom of navigation of the Roman Law on the Rhine, the Danube, and elsewhere. The United States, through President Truman, at the July–August Berlin (Potsdam) conference of the victorious allies, proposed that navigation over the internal waterways of Continental Europe be free to all nations under international control. More recently, in the latter weeks of 1945, grave obstacles and problems threaten the realization of the Truman proposal. The writer believes that if we visualize clearly the mechanism and workings of an international body vested with control of inland river navigation, we can better appraise the merits of that proposal.

It is the purpose of the law of State responsibility to extend the protection of international law to those who travel abroad and to facilitate social and economic ties between States. regardless of its political or economic philosophy, can remain indifferent to mistreatment of its nationals abroad. In an interdependent world the well-being of many countries rests upon an influx of foreign funds and managerial skills, the owners of which must be given effective protection against unjust prosecution or discrimination.Responding to this need, international law has developed over the last two hundred years standards and procedures designed to protect the life, liberty, and economic security of nationals of one State who live or conduct business activities.in another State. The General Assembly of the United Nations decided in 1953 that “it is desirable for the maintenance and development of peaceful relations between States that the principles of international law governing State responsibility be codified,” and requested the International Law Commission to undertake this codification. The Commission appointed as rapporteur for that subject Dr. F. V. García-Amador, who has submitted to the Commission six excellent reports on various aspects of State responsibility.