The close of its twenty-third year finds the Permanent Court of International Justice still in existence, and still in a position to resume its activity if and when the world situation may permit. Its premises in the Peace Palace at The Hague are intact; its President and Registrar carry on their duties from Geneva; and the twelve judges who continue in office are available for the discharge of their functions. The budget of the Court for 1944 was duly alimented and a budget has been adopted for 1945.

Several families now living in the Emergency Refugee Shelter which the United States Government has established at Fort Ontario, in the state of New York, are expecting the birth of children in the near future. Will these children acquire American citizenship jure soli? Does the non-immigrant status of the parents derogate from the privilege of the children? And most important among the numerous questions involved, Does the so-called “refugee free port” constitute the requisite type of American territory?

The Dumbarton Oaks proposals of October 7, 1944, reflect a development of ideas concerning international political and judicial organization in which the Section of International and Comparative Law of the American Bar Association has played a significant part. Its recommendations calling for the establishment of an international organization, including an improved system for settling justiciable disputes, have found their way into resolutions of the Association, composed of some thirty thousand lawyers. These resolutions preceded the joint projects of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China for an international organization for the maintenance of peace and security.

In the discussion of current problems of international organization frequent reference is being made to the action taken by the Council of the League of Nations in 1939 with reference to the membership of the Soviet Union. While the matter may be thought to have interest chiefly for historians, it might serve a useful purpose to reexamine the action taken in 1939 from a legal point of view. It is conceivable that a conclusion on the legal points involved might serve as a basis for removing some of the untoward features of the existing situation.

The result of the conversations between the delegations of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, in the Autumn of 1944, is not a Charter for the international organization to be established after the war. It is only Proposals for such a Charter; these Proposals are, moreover, as Secretary of State Cordell Hull pointed out, neither complete nor final. They do not concern all subject matters to be regulated by the future Charter and do not present precise formulations of legal rules to be binding upon contracting parties. This work still remains to be done. Hence it may seem to be premature to compare the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals with the Covenant of the League of Nations. Such a comparison cannot do justice to the achievements at Dumbarton Oaks; it is justifiable only as an attempt to contribute some suggestions for the great task of drafting the definitive text of the future charter; it must not be taken as a conclusive criticism.