The amendments to the Charter adopted by General Assembly Besolution 1991 (XVIII) A of December 17, 1963, relating to the Security Council entered into force on August 31, 1966. As a result, the number of the non-permanent members was raised from six to ten, bringing the total of members of the Council to fifteen and the word “seven” in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 27 was replaced by the word “nine.” The rest of paragraph 3 of Article 27 was left unchanged and the affirmative and concurring votes of the permanent members continue to be required for decisions of the Council “on all other matters,” that is, on all matters other than procedural ones. It is clear from the debates preceding the adoption of the amendments that there was no intention to tamper with this requirement which confers on each of the permanent members the power to cast a “veto,” that is, a negative vote. No attempt has been made to clarify the effect of the absence of a permanent member from the Council upon the adoption of decisions relating to non-procedural matters or the effect of the abstention by a permanent member in the vote on such a decision. Presumably, by tacit accord, it was deemed wiser to leave the proverbial Pandora’s box locked.

While there has been general agreement among writers on international law and polities that the recent rapid increase in the number of independent states is significant for the international system, debate about the actual and potential consequences of that increase for the contemporary international legal order continues. Since that debate, which focuses on the attitude of the “new states” toward the existing international legal order, the reasons for that attitude, and the extent to which changes in that order are consequently inevitable, likely or desirable, has so far been conducted primarily on the basis of impressionistic generalities, it appears essential to investigate more closely and empirically the attitudes and behavior of the new states. Egypt has been selected as an important case study because of its leadership in the Arab world, its strategic position in the Afro-Asian world, and its active rôle in the anti-colonial and non-alignment movements, as well as because of its particular yet representative problems and goals.

In his speech to the Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund at Rio de Janeiro on September 25, 1967, Mr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, the Managing Director of the Fund, said:

On June 30, 1967, in Geneva, Switzerland, Ambassador W. Michael Blumenthal, acting at the direction of the President, signed five multilateral agreements on behalf of the United States. He and the representatives of 45 other countries thereby concluded the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations and formalized an elaborate set of international obligations which, over a period of four years, would see the most extensive liberalization of trade ever achieved through co-operative action on the part of the trading countries of the world.

The fifty-third session of the Institut de Droit International, originally scheduled to meet in Athens under the presidency of Judge Jean Spiro-poulos, met instead at Nice, September 7-16, 1967, with Haroldo Valladão, First Vice President of the Institut, in the chair. The session was well attended and included, among the eighty-five participants, the Honorary President, Charles De Visscher, eight judges of the International Court of Justice and eighteen members or former members of the International Law Commission.

Litigation of contentious cases before the International Court of Justice has in some instances been a lengthy and comparatively expensive procedure. However, it is not necessarily the Court or its procedure that produces this situation, because governments parties to litigation sometimes feel it is important to retain a number of advocates to plead, and they agree on comparatively long periods for the preparation of written pleadings. Comparing this procedure with ad hoc arbitration before a referee and two arbitrators, the latter looks comparatively swift and inexpensive. However, there are as yet unused possibilities for the International Court to adjudicate cases on a basis comparable in time and expense to ad hoc arbitration. The use of the Court for what might be less important cases would also contribute to its institutional development.

On September 20, 1967, the Governments of Denmark, Norway and Sweden instituted an action against Greece before the European Commission of Human Rights. The Netherlands took the same step on September 27, 1967. These proceedings were brought in response to a resolution adopted on June 23, 1967, by the Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe which, on behalf of the Assembly, expressed “the wish that the Governments of the Contracting Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights refer the Greek case, either separately or jointly, to the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 24 of the Convention.”

It has long been recognized by students of international law that international legal rules may be significant issues in litigation before a municipal court. Three types of relationship of international law to municipal litigation may be observed: (1) those cases wherein the rules of international law are not germane; (2) those cases wherein the rules of international law, either conventional or customary, are a specific issue before the court and accordingly become part of the ratio decidendi of the court—the Sabbatino case is an example; and (3) those cases wherein international law rules are not a specific issue before the court but are part of the legal environment of the case. In these cases the court relies upon domestic law in its ratio deciderteli, but its cognizance of, or deference to, international law rules may either support or weaken international law. Although this note examines the third type of cases, the categories are not rigidly exclusive.

The United Nations Program of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law envisages, inter alia, the holding of regional training and refresher courses to he held every two years in rotation, in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In alternate years, regional seminars on a different level in which leading scholars and senior government officials from the region can discuss international or regional legal problems and legal matters before United Nations organs are similarly envisaged, in rotation, in Latin America, Africa and Asia, commencing in 1968.

The first meeting of the A.B.A. National Institute on Marine Resources, sponsored by the Section of Natural Resources Law, was held in Long Beach, California, June 7-10, 1967. The program included the presentation of papers, panel discussions, and questions from the audience dealing with the following topics : United States policy regarding marine resources ; the administration of marine resources underlying the high seas; zones of national interest—a discussion of the need for revision of the Geneva Conventions; the administration of laws for the exploitation of offshore minerals in the United States; and the technological aspects of exploiting marine resources.

The last decade has witnessed considerable evolution in the practice of recognition of new governments that have come to power by irregular means. Many of these changes appear to have gone almost unnoticed by many scholars in the field.

Of particular significance is the denial by Miss Marjorie Whiteman, Assistant Legal Adviser to the Department of State, in Volume II of her work, of a difference in the character of recognition, i.e., de facto or de jure recognition. Miss Whiteman lends her authority to this position when she states in Volume II of her Digest:

It is ironic that Fidel Castro, who is currently ostracized from the inter-American system of states, has provided the impetus needed to overcome the obstacles that have for so long prevented agreement on the procedure for Hemispheric action regarding the recognition of de facto governments. Earlier attempts to formulate a common basis for the recognition of de facto governments have been very limited both in their scope and their success.

Legal development in the developing countries is at the same time one of the most urgent needs for modernization and one of the most delicate fields in which non-national organizations, private as well as public, can render assistance.

A comprehensive, unified, and depersonalized body of law, a welltrained and adequate legal profession, and an efficient system of judicial administration are necessary to the mobilization of human resources for national development, to the safeguarding of human rights, and to the orderly and impartial operation of government in the developing (and developed) countries. To participate fully in the international community and share in the benefits of international intercourse, economic and political, the developing countries require carefully developed bodies of law relating to commerce and banking, trade and investment, and the whole field of foreign relations.

The material for this section is compiled by Charles I. Bevans, Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State.