The current international situation did not permit the Permanent Court of International Justice to resume its activities during the year 1942. Two cases are still pending before the court—the case relating to the Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria and the Gerliczy Case—but no action was taken by the parties in either of them during the year. Nor was there the usual activity in connection with instruments relating to the court.

Even before the attack upon the United States by Japan at Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declarations of war by Germany and Italy, the Inter-American Neutrality Committee had already been forced into a position where it could not fulfill the purposes for which it was originally intended. At the time of its creation by the meeting of Foreign Ministers at Panama in 1939, the Committee represented a genuine desire on the part of the American Republics to observe “certain standards” of neutral conduct which would insure their being able to maintain their status as neutral States; and in fulfillment of the functions assigned to it, the Committee proceeded to make “recommendations” which it believed to be in accord with the traditional principles of neutrality. The recommendation on the Security Zone, while upholding a departure by the American Republics from the specific rules of neutrality, was justified by the Committee on the basis of the fundamental right of self-defense under the conditions of modern submarine warfare.

A large-scale problem for the principal belligerents in the present war is that of the treatment of civilians of enemy nationality in their respective jurisdictions. Measured in terms of the number of human beings involved, national safety considerations, and the possibly unfortunate effect at home of mishandling it, the problem assumes far-reaching importance. There is need for clear law as well as positive action. There is need for perspective. In relation to international law, the distinctiveness of the classification of “civilian alien enemy,” past effort looking to the construction of internationally binding rules prescribing treatment, and practice in the current war, merit attention.

Few periods of history disclose less harmony, mutual respect and trust among nations than the present. It may therefore seem inappropriate in such an atmosphere to discuss the place of law and courts, since they can function effectively only in periods of relative stability. Yet the very fact that international law is in some respects passing through a depression may sharpen our perspective and emancipate us from the illusions of the recent past. We may get a better grasp on realities and more correctly gauge the prospects for an ordered international life.

The present totalitarian war and the emergency situations which preceded it and which are following in its wake have caused the creation of many new concepts which perhaps owe their basis to the theory that in the conduct of foreign affairs and in the conduct of war the executive arm of the government must be unhampered. In several recent cases the United States Supreme Court has held that under the Constitution the conduct of foreign relations is committed to the political departments of the Federal Government, and that the propriety of the exercise of that power is not open to judicial inquiry. However, it is now equally well settled that where a conflict of property rights under statutes and treaties is presented, the determination of these rights by the executive department is subject to review by the courts. The doctrine excluding from judicial inquiry the conduct of foreign relations by the political departments of the government has encouraged the creation of concepts which permeate the entire field relating to the alien and his property.

At the moment, alien seamen present problems due to a variety of factors: The inability of Norwegian, Greek, Yugoslav, Dutch, Belgian, and other friendly vessels to return to their home ports under German occupation to replenish their crews with nationals; the dislocation throughout Europe of arrangements for hiring, paying, and attending to the welfare of seamen; the inability of American immigration authorities to force the repatriation of Norwegian, Greek, etc., seamen who overstay their leave in our ports; the wage and other labor difficulties arising from the freedom of seamen to accept or reject any offered job, to quit their jobs and seek better ones; and the operation of our Asiatic exclusion laws upon increasing numbers of Chinese and Lascar seamen.