The resumption of its judicial activity after a lapse of eight years was the outstanding feature of the twenty-seventh year of the World Court. A judgment rejecting a preliminary objection in the Corfu Channel Case was handed down on March 25, 1948, and the case was still pending at the close of the year. An advisory opinion on Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations was given on May 28, 1948; and late in the year the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations.

The failure of the United Nations Organization to promote cooperation among its members in solving urgent international problems is a disappointing feature of the post-war world and compares unfavorably with the opening stages of the League of Nations activities, which were marked by a will to cooperation among the members and considerable success in resolving outstanding international problems. The reasons for this failure may be manifold, but it would seem that among them there is also a want of agreement on some basic concepts which are essential for the normal functioning of the Organization. As the main task of the Organization is the development of cooperation among nations according to the proclaimed principles for the achievement of the avowed aims, it appears to be indispensable that among the nations there exist a broad agreement on concepts which are not only essential for the understanding and observance of the purposes and principles of the Organization, but also of importance in determining mutual relations among the member states themselves. These would be the concepts of the state, law and sovereignty, which form the basis of every international order. It must, however, be admitted that there exists no agreement on these concepts among the members of the Organization, ft is just there that the rift between East and West manifests itself in a conspicuous way, and deprives the Organization of an essential prerequisite for successful functioning.

The recent Kasenkina and Samarin affairs, which led to a breach of consular relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, have raised a number of legal issues relating to the status of foreign consular officials. The legal principles involved, however, have been beclouded by widespread misunderstanding of the nature and scope of consular privileges and immunities, by obviously baseless charges made by the Soviet Government against that of the United States, and by the apparent reluctance of the latter to press to its fullest extent a sound legal case.

The relationship between the Government of the Union of India and the Princely State of Hyderabad has attracted world-wide attention. Through what seems to be complete misunderstanding of the legal status of Hyderabad, the United Nations placed the case on the agenda of the Security Council. Although the Nizam of Hyderabad, after the successful conclusion of the Indian Army's punitive expedition into Hyderabad, has petitioned the United Nations to withdraw the case, the question still remains on the agenda.

Upon signing the General Act at the close of the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information, held at Geneva in March and April, 1948, General Carlos P. Romulo, its President, declared that some day that document might be regarded as the Magna Carta of freedom of thought and expression.1 While this view may be somewhat over-optimistic, undoubtedly the Conference showed a balance-sheet of substantial accomplishment. Opening in an atmosphere of deep pessimism contrasting with the brighter ambiance of 1946 when the idea of a conference was launched, the Conference closed with what may be called a victory of limited objectives.