Claimants, sole owners of capital stock in Pomeroy Corporation (Pomeroy), a Liberian corporation, filed a claim against respondent, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal for amounts allegedly due Pomeroy under a contract for the provision of planning, development and administrative services to the Iranian Navy. Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, contending that claimants could not assert the contract rights of Pomeroy because it was not a national of the United States. In addition, respondent disputed the validity of the contract and, in the alternative, alleged that Pomeroy had breached the contract. Chamber Three rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding, that since the claimants owned a controlling interest in the corporation, they indirectly owned the claims of the corporation. As U.S. nationals, they were proper parties to assert those claims before the Tribunal. The Chamber also held that a contract existed between the parties and awarded claimants amounts due for services rendered, an estimated amount for lost profits, and interest and costs.

Claimant, Chas. T. Main International, Inc., filed a claim against respondent, Khuzestan Water & Power Authority, in the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal for amounts allegedly due under a contract for the provision of engineering and construction management services. Claimant contended that an exchange of documents and other conduct of the parties demonstrated the existence of a contractual relationship, despite respondent’s failure to sign a formal written agreement that had been drafted by claimant and allegedly approved by respondent. Respondent sought dismissal of the claim both on jurisdictional grounds and on the merits, contending that no contract existed since the respondent had never signed the formal agreement. In an interlocutory award, Chamber Two held: that respondent’s conduct, including the authorization and ratification of claimant’s services, demonstrated the existence of a contract, and that respondent’s refusal to pay for claimant’s services constituted a compensable breach of that contract. The Chamber further determined that the appointment of experts was necessary to ascertain the value of the services rendered.

On November 5, 1982, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal decided a series of nine cases presenting issues of the greatest significance for the future course of that Tribunal’s work. The issue for decision in each case was the effect of a contractual choice-of-forum clause on the Tribunal’s own jurisdiction, an issue likely to arise in a great many cases. Squarely presented were issues pertaining to the relationship between public and private international law, the content of a state’s obligation under international law to maintain an adequate and effective system of local remedies, and the scope of “changed circumstances” as a ground for release from contractual obligations.

On October 27, 1981, a Soviet submarine 137 surfaced in Swedish internal waters, well inside the military protection area of the naval base of Karlskrona. The submarine had grounded on a shoal and was unable to move without assistance. The Swedish Government refused a request from the USSR to salvage the ship itself and demanded that, in return for assistance by Swedish vessels, the commander submit to interrogation by Swedish authorities. The Soviet Union acceded to this by a formal agreement. The submarine was eventually escorted out of Swedish territorial waters.

Namibia, a territory in southwest Africa adjacent in the west to South Africa and Botswana, derives its notoriety from the fact that its history is a major component of the history and oppression of South African apartheid. But for this fact, the current guerrilla warfare there would perhaps be dismissed as another obscure conflict in some distant land. Few persons on the outside would know about it in detail, and absent special circumstances overtly involving the superpowers or some spreading of the war, fewer still would care.

Grenada is a micro-state located in the southeastern Caribbean Sea, approximately 1600 miles from the United States. Its territory covers some 133 square miles—about twice the size of the District of Columbia—and its citizen population numbers around 110,000. Granted independence from British colonial rule in 1974, Grenada functioned under a parliamentary government until March 1979, when Maurice Bishop’s New Joint Endeavor for the Welfare, Education, and Liberation (JEWEL) Movement ousted then Prime Minister Sir Eric Gairy in a near bloodless coup. Since attaining independence, Grenada sought and secured membership in the British Commonwealth, the Organization of American States, the Caribbean Common Market and the United Nations.

Grenada is one of seven small and newly independent island nations in the Caribbean sharing a common cultural and political background and a close association within the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). Because of their small size and common background, these seven nations share a common market, a common currency and to some extent common administrative, diplomatic, judicial and defense functions within the OECS framework. Although independent, in many respects they have closer ties than, for example, members of the OAS or even the EEC.

When momentous events take place on the international scene, there are predictable pressures on those who have reputations as international lawyers to give opinions as to the legalities. There are phone calls from reporters, perhaps even student rallies, to say nothing of inquiries from academic colleagues (especially those who ignore the field most of the time). The recent episode in Grenada gives one an opportunity to evaluate what can be done under those pressured circumstances to give an enlightening and useful judgment as to what international law has to say about such an event. As any professor knows, the time constraints of examinations make a difference in the rate at which students can analyze problems, just as there are differences in the amount of information they can dig out of the stacks when a short period is allocated to the exercise. The space limitations that are imposed on the product also make it hard to put forth a coherent and nuanced argument. The more one knows about the topic, the less easy it is to wrap up the matter neatly and certainly. Legal foundations ought to underpin or contain one’s judgments about policy, but they can do that only if there is some real finality to them. How does one grade the performance of the international law community under this test?

The Reagan administration’s arguments purporting to justify the invasion of Grenada under international law must not be allowed to inveigle the American people into supporting this violent intervention into the domestic affairs of another independent state. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. Government has routinely concocted evanescent threats to the lives and property of U.S. nationals as pretexts to justify armed interventions into sister American states. The transparency of these pretexts was just as obvious then as it is now. The Reagan administration has not established by means of clear and convincing evidence that there did in fact exist an immediate threat to the safety of U.S. citizens in Grenada. Even then, such a threat could have justified only a limited military operation along the lines of the Israeli raid at Entebbe for the sole purpose of evacuating the major concentration of U.S. nationals at the medical college.

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.