Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations has generally been regarded as one of its most poorly drafted parts; and the experience of the Security Council in dealing with cases recently coming before it has both evidenced the uncertainties of the text and added to the confusion as to its meaning. The difficulties of the Council were increased by the tendency of members to disregard the text of the Charter and by the lack of Rules of Procedure. As a result important issues have been raised, especially in the Soviet-Iran case, and more particularly as to the decision that a dispute exists concerning which the Council may make recommendations.

The history of war knows no such brigandage, fanaticism, or such craftiness as the German fascist usurpers practiced from the moment of their attack upon the peoples of other states. The rules and customs relating to the conduct of war, recognized by all civilized peoples, were rejected and trampled under foot by these usurpers. These rules and customs relating to the conduct of war, put together in the course of many centuries, have received the title “the law of war” and constitute an inseparable part of international law.

The possibility of continued resistance by Japanese forces toward the end of 1945, contrary to the terms of the surrender agreement by the Japanese Government, again raised the problem of the status of guerrillas under the laws of war. This problem has arisen during almost every war in modern history. It arose at the conclusion of hostilities with Germany when there was speculation that some German forces would refuse to abide by the unconditional surrender.

In its reply to the identical notes sent by Secretary of State James F. Byrnes on February 9, 1946, to the Chinese and Soviet Governments concerning the disposition of Japanese external assets, the Government of China stated that the claim of the Soviet Government “that all Japanese enterprises in the Chinese Northeastern Provinces which had rendered services to the Japanese Army were regarded by the Soviet Union as war booty of Soviet forces” is considered by the Chinese Government “as far exceeding the scope of war booty as generally recognized by international law and international usage.”

International coöperation in economic and social fields, a direct consequence of the amazing progress attained in the field of transportation and communications, has progressed during recent decades with remarkable speed. There were leagues and associations of states even in ancient times, and some of them were formed and maintained for economic as well as for political purposes, but modern economic and social cooperation extends to the most varied spheres of human activity and emphasizes more and more the interests of individuals as contrasted with those of states.1 It finds its most characteristic expression in the so-called public international unions, associations of sovereign states for the accomplishment of certain definite tasks in the economic and social field, but it is embodied also in the important work of private international associations. Organizations of the latter type have often been instrumental in bringing about important international regulations.

Held, (1) that an alien who had resided in this country could be guilty of treason in respect of an act committed outside the realm; that the appellant while in the realm owed allegiance to the Crown; that by the receipt of the passport he extended the duty of allegiance beyond the moment when he left the shores of this country; and that so long as he held the passport he was, within the meaning of the statute of 1351, a person who, if he adhered to the King’s enemies in the realm or elsewhere, committed an act of treason; (2) that the Courts had jurisdiction to try the appellant: (3) that from the summing-up the jury could not have failed to appreciate that it was for them to consider whether the passport remained at all times in the possession of the appellant; (4) that as the appellant had admittedly adhered to the King’s enemies outside the realm he had been rightly convicted of treason.