The inter-American system, initiated in 1826 at Panama with the First Congress of American States called by Sim6n Bolivar, the Liberator, and definitely established in 1899 by the First International Conference of American States at Washington, has experienced throughout its long history a sound, steady growth. No system of international organization in the world can claim a similar record. In spite of great obstacles encountered at various times, the inter-American system has made continuous progress and has emerged with greater strength after passing through each of its many stages of gradual development.

That man could destroy his civilization has been known, theoretically, for many years; now there is actual proof that he can. Atomic bombs have been unleashed in international society, the results of which have no comparison in history.

Modern international private law has adopted the hypothesis of the equality of foreign and domestic law. As Savigny says, the judge must apply the law of the place with which the case is connected without considering whether this law is that of his own country or of a foreign country.

According to the Declaration made at Berlin on June 5, 1945, by the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, these Governments have assumed “ supreme authority with respect to Germany including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the high command, and any state, municipal, or local government or authority.” This means that the German territory, together with the population residing on it, has been placed under the sovereignty of the four powers. It means further that the legal status of Germany is not that of “ belligerent occupation” in accordance with the Articles 42 to 56 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907. After Germany's unconditional surrender and especially after the abolition of the last German Government, the Government of Grand Admiral Doenitz, the status of belligerent occupation has become impossible. This status presupposes that a state of war still exists in the relationship between the occupant state and the state whose territory is under belligerent occupation. This condition implies the continued existence of the state whose territory is occupied and, consequently, the continued existence of its government recognized as the legitimate bearer of the sovereignty of the occupied state. This is the reason why it is generally assumed that belligerent occupation does not confer upon the occupant power sovereignty over the occupied territory. By belligerent occupation the legitimate government is made incapable of exercising its authority and is only substituted for the period of occupation by the authority of the occupant power. The legitimate government of the occupied state, especially the head of the state, may be expelled from the occupied territory and may have established his seat on the territory of an ally; the government, and especially the head of the occupied state, may even be made prisoners of war. But the government must continue to exist and must be recognized as such by the occupant power. The latter must be willing to conclude with this government a treaty of peace and to hand back to it the whole or a part of the occupied territory.

The problem of war criminals has aroused controversy between those who insist that enemy persons guilty of acts which have shocked the conscience of mankind shall be punished and those who insist that the United Nations must observe principles of civilized justice. Those principles require that an individual shall not be punished for an act, however shocking, unless the act was a crime under the law applicable at the time and place where it was committed (nulla poena sine lege), and unless the guilt of the individual has been established by a competent court utilizing fair procedures (due process of law).