On 12–13 December 1981, a newspaper published a description of the scramble among several groups of scientists and treasure hunters over a wreck found in 1976 on a shallow reef of the Caicos Islands and believed by some to be the “Pinta”, one of the three ships that sailed with Columbus in 1492. On 28 August 1981, the same paper announced the discovery and impending removal of seventy-two rotting wooden hulks lying on the seabed off the coast of Southern Japan near Nagasaki. It has been contended that these hulks are the remains of the fleets with which Kublai Khan vainly attempted to invade Japan in 1274 and 1281.a Similar notices appear with increasing frequency in the international press. In 1980, for instance, the discovery of the wreck of a Czarist warship, the “Admiral Nakhimov”, sunk in the Strait of Korea during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, was announced; it is rumoured that the ship carried an enormous treasure of gold, platinum and other valuables. This discovery led to a heated controversy between the Soviet Union and Japan, in the course of which the former asserted that the salvage operation planned by a Japanese businessman would amount to “an act of piracy”, the vessel having retained its character as a Russian warship and, therefore, the sovereign immunity attached to it. Another event which provoked considerable argument was the partly successful attempt by the United States research vessel “Glomar Explorer” to raise the wreck of a Soviet submarine which had sunk 1,000 miles north-west of Hawaii in 1968.

The 1966 decision of the International Court of Justice setting aside the applications of Ethiopia and Liberia, and consequently dealing a mortal blow to efforts which had sought a judicial resolution of the Namibia dispute, has come to be viewed as a watershed in the history of the Court. From the standpoint of the Court's procedure, the South West Africa decision was noteworthy because it produced some strongly-worded individual opinions that appeared to deal with questions which had been before the Court but had not been dealt with by the Court's Judgment. The publication of these opinions sparked a controversy over the proper scope of expression available to individual judges — a controversy that still remains to be resolved. The Court probably discussed this issue in its private deliberations on the 1966 Judgment but did not take any public position on the subject. The only indication of the Court's concern was a “declaration” by President Spender in which he analyzed the limits that individual opinions ought to observe. Spender concluded that the scope of individual opinions must be determined by the fact that they are “directly connected with and dependent upon the judgment;” that the judgment is the “focal point of the different judicial views expressed;” that “in principle (individual) opinions should not purport to deal with matters that fall entirely outside the range of the Court's decision;” and, finally, that “there must exist a close direct link between individual opinions and the judgment of the Court”.

The international community is formed first and foremost by states, which were defined by Vattel as “political bodies, societies of men who have united together and combined their forces in order to procure their mutual welfare and security”. The element missing from this definition relates to the need for a territorial basis for such political bodies. This necessity, however, is self-evident. As Oppenheim has noted, “a State without a territory is not possible”. This does not mean that territoriality is a criterion of personality in international law, but statehood is inconceivable in the absence of a reasonably defined geographical base. The frontiers of such an entity need not be established beyond dispute, nor is there any prescribed minimum of territory for the existance of a state, but some piece of land is essential before one can accept the establishment and continuation of a state.

This article deals with repatriation. It is now generally agreed that repatriation should be considered the best of the durable solutions to refugee problems, if, of course, it is a feasible option. In view of the strength of the bond between a refugee and his country of origin, promotion of repatriation would seem to be advisable, unless it is clear that the returnee would face serious problems upon his return. Anyone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted should, of course, be considered a genuine refugee, and it would be quite wrong to put any pressure on such a person to return to a country which he fled for legitimate reasons. The same would be true for the displaced person who left his country owing to man-made or natural disasters. In general, the stay abroad of refugees and displaced persons is not necessarily unlimited and due attention should therefore be paid to fundamental changes in the circumstances in the country of origin, and even to relevant acts of the person concerned.

Dutch-Chinese realations were brought into the limelight in 1980 in connention with the sale of two submarines to the authorities in Taiwan by a Dutch shipyard. The transaction raised several questions concerning the compatibility of the transaction or, more particularly, of the involvement of the Dutch Government, with the non-recognized status of Taiwan and the obligations of the Netherlands towards China.

On Sunday 26 July 1981, “Radio Paradise” made experimental transmissions in Dutch and intended for reception by the general public in the Netherlands, without having obtained permission from the appropriate Dutch authorities. The transmissions were carried out from a ship off the Dutch coast, outside territorial waters. It was announced that regular broadcasts to the Netherlands would begin shortly afterwards.