¹ There is relevant background and broader consideration of some matters dealt with here in my book How Nations Behave: Lam and Foreign Policy (New York: Praeger, Frederick A. [for the Council on Foreign Relations], 1968)Google Scholar.

² I consider principally universal organizations and others in which the United States participates; other organizations, notably the European Communities and broader European institutions, have made major contributions to law and the rule of law that impinge also on the rest of the world, not least on the United States.

³ This most “meager” multilateral “organization” that comes to mind was established in 1865 to direct, administer, and financially support the lighthouse which had been built by the Moroccan government at Cape Spartel. See Convention concerning the Cape Spartel Lighthouse, May 31, 1865, in Sanger, George P. (ed.), United States Statutes at Large (hereinafter cited as Stat.), Vol. 14 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), pp. 679–681Google Scholar; United States Treaty Series (hereinafter cited as TS) 245 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office)Google Scholar. The Convention was terminated by protocol on March 31, 1958. See United States Treaties and Other International Agreements (hereinafter cited as UST), Vol. 9 (1958) (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), pp. 527–530Google Scholar; Treaties and Other International Acts Series (hereinafter cited as T1AS) 4029 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958)Google Scholar; United Nations Treaty Series (hereinafter cited as UNTS), Vol. 320 (1959), No. 4639 (New York: United Nations), pp. 103–109Google Scholar. Control was returned to the government of Morocco.

⁴ See “Multilateral International Coffee Agreement,” 09 28, 1962, in UST, Vol. 14 (1963), Part 2 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), pp. 1911–2202Google Scholar; TIAS, 5505 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964)Google Scholar; UNTS, Vol. 469 (1963), No. 6791 (New York: United Nations), pp. 169–413Google Scholar. See also “Multilateral Articles of Agreement of the International Cotton Institute,” January 24, 1966, in UST, Vol. 17 (1961), Part 1 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 83–105Google Scholar; TIAS, 5964 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967)Google Scholar. See also “Multilateral International Sugar Agreement,” December I, 1958, in UST, Vol. 10 (1959), Part 3 (Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2189–2432Google Scholar; TIAS, 4389 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960)Google Scholar; UNTS, Vol. 385 (1961), No. 5534 (New York: United Nations), pp. 137–357Google Scholar. See also the amended constitution of the International Rice Commission, November 23, 1961, in UST, Vol. 13 (1962), Part 2 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 2403–2417Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 5204 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962)Google Scholar; UNTS, Vol. 418 (1962), No. 1613 (New York: United Nations), pp. 334–347Google Scholar.

⁵ E.g., International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, December 2, 1946 (Stat., Vol. 62 [1948], Part 2 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949], pp. 1716–1729Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 1849 [Department of State Publication 3383] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949]),Google Scholar implemented by the Whaling Convention Act of 1950 (Stat., Vol. 64 [1950–1951], Part I [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952], pp. 421–425Google Scholar; United States Code, Tide 16: Conservation [1952 ed.; Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953], 916–16LGoogle Scholar); Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, May 31, 1949 (UST, Vol. 1 [1950] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952], pp. 230–246Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 2044 [Department of State Publication 3851] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950]Google Scholar; UNTS, Vol. 80 [1951], No. 1041 [New York: United Nations], pp. 3–25)Google Scholar; Convention between the United States of America and Canada Concerning the Sockeye Salmon Fisheries, May 26, 1930 (Stat., Vol. 50 [1937], Part 2 [Washington: VS. Government Printing Office, 1955], pp. 1355–1361Google Scholar; TS, No. 918 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1937])Google Scholar; Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (UST, Vol. 5 [1954], Part 1 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955], pp. 5–11Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 2900 [Department of State Publication 5372] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954])Google Scholar; Convention with Canada and Japan on High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, May 9, 1952 (UST, Vol. 4 [1953], Part 1 Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955, pp. 380–420Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 2786 [Department of State Publication 5202] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954])Google Scholar; Interim Convention on North Pacific Fur Seals (United States, Canada, Japan, Soviet Union), February 9, 1957 TIAS, No. 3948 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958])Google Scholar.

⁶ As of the end of 1966 there had been 126 such conventions. See Yearbook, of the United Nations: 1966 (New York: United Nations, 1968), p. 978Google Scholar.

⁷ The 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) which is the constitution of ICAO was accompanied by the International Air Services Transit Agreement and the International Air Transport Agreement. Since then there have been other agreements including modifications of earlier agreements e.g., of the 1929 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Transportation by Air (Warsaw Convention) which established rules relating to air transportation, including limitations on the liability of carriers.

⁸ As of December 31, 1967, 131 treaties had been developed under the auspices of the UN and the specialized agencies for which the UN Secretary-General was the depositary. See Multilateral Treaties in respect of Which the Secretary-General Performs Depositary Functions: List of Signatures, Ratifications, Accessions, etc. as at 31 December 1967 (United Nations Publication Sales No: E.68.V.3 [UN Document St/Leg/Ser.D/i]) (New York: United Nations, 1968)Google Scholar. Special mention is due also to the International Law Commission (ILC) which with devotion and competence has proposed conventions containing new developments in the law, as well as the new law that is inherent in clarification and codification of old law.

⁹ Some of these antedate the hemisphere's involvement in the Second World War, e.g., the convention between die American republics regarding the status of aliens in their respective territories, February 20, 1928 (Stat., Vol. 46 [1929–1931], Part 2 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office 1931], pp. 2753–2756Google Scholar; TS, No. 815 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930]Google Scholar; League of Nations Treaty Series [hereinafter cited as LNTS], Vol. 132 [1932–1933], No. 3045 [Geneva: League of Nations, 1932] PP. 301–311)Google Scholar; convention concerning artistic exhibitions, December 23, 1936 (Stat., Vol. 51 [1937] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938], pp. 206–229Google Scholar; TS, No. 929 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1937]Google Scholar; LNTS, Vol. 138 [1938], No. 4356 [Geneva: League of Nations, 1938], pp. 151–171)Google Scholar; convention providing for creation of the Inter-American Indian Institute, November 1, 1940 (Stat., Vol. 56 [1942] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949, pp. 1681–1715Google Scholar; TS, No. 978 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942])Google Scholar. More recent ones include the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) (Stat., Vol. 62 [1948] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 1681–1715Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 1838 [Department of State Publication 3380] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949]Google Scholar; UNTS, Vol. 21 [1948], No. 324 [New York: United Nations], pp. 77–185Google Scholar); convention on the regulation of inter-American automotive traffic, September 19, 1949 (UST, Vol. 3 [1952], Part 3 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955], pp. 3008–3061Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 2487 [Department of State Publication 4606] [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952])Google Scholar; and convention for die promotion of inter-American cultural relations, March 28, 1954 (UST, Vol. 8 [1957] Part 2 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958], pp. 1903–1935Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 3936 [Washington: u.S. Government Printing Office, 1957])Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Usually these require unanimous consent or are only recommendations, for especially since the early postwar days (in the UN Charter and the Bretton Woods agreements) nations have been generally unwilling to submit to decisions to which they do not consent. But submission to regulation is in somecases the condition of some advantage: for example, accepting inspection is the price of receiving fissionablematerials through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Within smaller groupings or in regard to specific subjects all the participants sometimes subject themselves to “supranational” regulation, but vetoes or various forms of weighted voting protect the more important states.

¹¹ E.g., General Assembly Resolution 380 (V), November 17, 1950 (“Peace Through Deeds”).

¹² Principally the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.

¹³ I discuss the legal status of General Assembly resolutions in How Nations Behave, pp. 163–173.

¹⁴ See, e.g., Henkin, Louis, Law for the Sea's Mineral Resources (New York: Columbia University Institute for the Study of Science in Human Affairs, 1968), pp. 14–24Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Notably, the Constitution of ILO requires governments to report what measures they have taken to give effect to their obligations under conventions they have ratified. The reports are scrutinized by a committee of experts and governments may be called on to reply to the committee's criticism. ILO has also developed special procedures for the handling of complaints and the settlement of disputes.

¹⁶ Between 1922 and 1939 the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) considered 66 adversary proceedings and handed down 27 advisory opinions. Since 1945, although it might have been ex-pected that the ICJ would be a more important and effective body, the ICJ has considered 50 adversary proceedings and handed down thirteen advisory opinions. Numbers apart, the ICJ has not had the impact which many had hoped for.

¹⁷ Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 1$ June 7962: l.C.]. Reports 1962. Thailand, to show its displeasure at having lost the case, refused to attend meetings of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Geneva conference on Laos. (The New York Times, June 20, 1962.) Thailand also recalled its ambassador to France, presumably because two French lawyers represented Cambodia in the case, and cut off trade with Poland, apparently because the President of the Court at the time was a Polish national. (The New York Times, June 23, 1962.)

¹⁸ In 1966 a bare majority in effect reversed an earlier decision and held that under the League of Nations mandate Ethiopia and Liberia did not have a justiciable claim to challenge apartheid in South West Africa.

¹⁹ Under the original Convention the ICJ clause was not open to reservation. Compare Articles 38 and 52. The 1967 Protocol permits new adherents to reserve that clause. It was to encourage adherence by those who might refuse to adhere to the 1951 Convention because of the ICJ clause that the Protocol was drafted in an unusual, almost grotesque form.

²⁰ See footnote 16 above.

²¹ The issue was recently before the Court in two cases, one between Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), the other between the Federal Republic and the Netherlands. A judgment generally favoring Germany's position was handed down in February 1969.

²² See in particular Kennan, George F., American Diplomacy: 1900–1950 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1951), pp. 95ff.Google Scholar I deal with this and other criticism in How Nations Behave, Chapter XVIII, particularly pp. 254–261.

²³ See footnote 33 below.

²⁴ See the Truman proclamation, No. 2667, of September 28, 1945, in Federal Register, Vol. 10 (October 1945), No. 191 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945)Google Scholar.

²⁵ In one instance the Executive branch was prepared to accept such provisions but the Senate insisted that the states remain free to limit the practice of the professions to aliens. See Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and Israel, August 23, 1951, Article VIII (2), in UST, Vol. 5 (1954), Part 1 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955), pp. 550–604Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 2948 (Department of State Publication 5490) (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954)Google Scholar; see also the Senate's reservations in Congressional Record, Vol. 99 (July 13, 1953–July 25, 1953), Part 7 (83rd Congress, 1st Session) (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953). PP- 9313, 9314Google Scholar (remarks of Senator Bourke Hickenlooper). Compare Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and Greece, August 3, 1951, Article XII (1), in UST, Vol. 5 (1954), Part 2 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956), pp. 1829–1921Google Scholar; TIAS, No. 3057 (Department of State Publication 5677) (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955)Google Scholar.

²⁶ At least it has insisted on a clause in the Status of Forces Agreement designed to require the host nation to give sympathetic consideration to requests that it waive criminal jurisdiction over American soldiers and has sought waivers as a matter of course in almost every case.

²⁷ In 1968 after seventeen years—perhaps because refugees are not being admitted to the United States in large numbers, perhaps by oversight, perhaps in guilty reaction to its failure to adhere to other covenants—the United States adhered to the 1951 Convention through the back door by accepting the 1967 Protocol which virtually incorporated the 1951 Convention by reference. Entered into force for the United States on November 1, 1968 (TIAS, No. 6577 [Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office], 1968)Google ScholarPubMed.

²⁸ See Senate Executive Report No. 17 (90th Congress, 1st Session) (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967)Google Scholar and Congressional Record Vol. 113 (November 1, 1967–November 9, 1967), Part 23 (90th Congress, 1st Session) (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 30902–30909, remarks of Senator William Proxmire and others.

²⁹ See Henkin, , How Nations Behave, Chapter XVIII, particularly pp. 261–266Google Scholar.

³⁰ As in NATO. It has also claimed this as a principal justification for its action in Vietnam.

³¹ It is difficult to fault the United States even in regard to die “law” which die UN General Assembly has sought to make, for while tie United States has questioned some of tiat “law,” it has not lighdy flouted it. Although it rejected die declaration by the General Assembly in Resolution 1653 (XVI), of November 24, 1961, that the use of nuclear weapons (even in self-defense) is illegal, happily, it has not yet had to decide whether to act contrary to that view of die law. It has differed from some extreme positions as to die meaning of die “law” of self-determination but it has not in fact acted contrary to them. It has complied with recommendations of UN organs about which it had misgivings, as in regard to Southern Rhodesia and South Africa.

³² Caution about adhering to new law, e.g., disarmament agreements or human rights covenants, or to accept compulsory jurisdiction of die ICJ, p. 112 above, is also rooted in part in fear that Communist enemies might abuse such new law or such consent to adjudication.

³³ There has been a disposition to treat the Reservation as an absolute “veto” on the Court's jurisdiction rather than as a right to make a bona fide determination in a close case that there is no question of international law or treaty. See “Pending Repeal of the Connally Amendment,” Record of the New York City Bar Association (Vol. 19, No. 3). Compare the objection of the United States in the Interhtmdel case, where the United States invoked its reservation when Switzerland challenged the right of the United States to sequester property which the United States claimed belonged to an alien enemy corporation while Switzerland insisted it was a neutral Swiss corporation. See I.C.I. Pleadings, Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States of America).