The 1971 Constitutional Amendments (Amendments XX-XLII) gave far-reaching legislative competence to the six republics and two autonomous provinces that form the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This line of development has been confirmed by the 1974 Federal Constitution and the Constitutions of the republics and of the autonomous provinces, enacted the same year. Article 281 of the new Federal Constitution enumerates the remaining federal legislative competence. In doing so, it reserves substantial powers in the area of contracts and property, but it leaves barely any room for federal intervention in the area of family law and succession. Outside the realm of legal relationships that are —in the event that they contain a foreign element— traditionally settled by the rules of Private International Law, under the new constitutions in Yugoslavia a diversity of legislations and accordingly conflicts of laws are possible in the area of taxation, social security, criminal law, some administrative matters such as identity cards, academic degrees, bar examinations, etc.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has a ‘historic role’ as ‘the first comprehensive international human rights instrument to be legally binding on States parties’.

Mr. Smirnov (USSR) at the 1987th meeting of the Economic and Social Council.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966, entered into force on 3 January 1976, three months after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification, as provided for in article 27 of the Covenant. The event has been described as “an historic event and a signal achievement of the United Nations”. The Covenant has to date been ratified or adhered to by the following 39 States: Australia, Barbados, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus; Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Norway, Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

When on 3 October 1957 the Russian astronaut Gagarin was launched into outer space and when twelve years later on 20 July 1969 the American astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the Moon, the enthusiasm of the world population for these two events was enormous.

The international transportation trade ought to know of the recent unique judgment of the Supreme Court of Japan rendered, on the problem of exclusive jurisdiction, upon a claim arising from a shipment covered by a Bill of Lading (B/L) issued by a Dutch shipowner, Koninklijke Java-China Paketvaart Lijnen, N.V. (hereafter referred to as Royal Interocean). Nanyo Bussan, Inc. a Japanese import corporation, bought 21,478 bags of raw sugar from a Brazilian exporter who shipped the sugar on the motor vessel “Tjisadane” owned by Royal Interocean from Santos, Brazil to Osaka, Japan. On arrival of the “Tjisadane” at Osaka, it was found that 814 bags of raw sugar were sea-damaged. So the Tokyo Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer, paid Nanyo Bussan the amount of ¥ 1,376,180 insured under the marine insurance policy. Thereafter, on 28 February 1959 the Insurance Company filed a suit against Royal interocean with the Kobe District Court where the latter's branch office is situated claiming for recovery of the insured amount by legal subrogation to the importer Nanyo Bussan to whom it had been paid. Now, there is a clause on the reverse side of the Bill of Lading that reads: “All actions under this contract of carriage shall be brought before the Court at Amsterdam, and no other court shall have jurisdiction with regard to any other action unless the carrier appeals to another jurisdiction or voluntarily submits himself thereto.” Royal Interocean invoked the application of this jurisdiction clause and pleaded that the Amsterdam Court was solely competent to try the case to the exclusion of the Kobe District Court. The Kobe District Court, after several years of deliberation, rendered judgment on 18 July 1963 in favour of Royal Interocean and dismissed the action of the Insurance Company on the sole ground that it had no jurisdiction over the case and that the Amsterdam Court was competent. The Insurance Company then appealed to the Osaka High Court, which likewise took several years of deliberation and, finally, on 15 December 1969 rendered judgment in favour of Royal Interocean dismissing the appeal on the sole ground of lack of competence in the case. The Insurance Company then re-appealed to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the Osaka High Court.