The urgent demand for improvement in food production for a growing world population necessitates, inter alia, a mere intensive exploration and exploitation of the living resources of the oceans. This higher level of exploitation can be realized by an increase in effort and by the development of new techniques for maritime fishing. However, at the same time it has become apparent that the living resources of the oceans are not inexhaustible. In many areas of the seas the dangers of overfishing have been amply demonstrated. This makes effective regulation of maritime fishing operations a matter of increasing urgency.

In December 1968 Israeli forces launched an attack on Beirut Airport, claiming as justification, inter alia, Lebanese responsibility under international law for a number of incidents involving damage to life and property caused, it was alleged, by groups operating from the Lebanon 1). The action, which was the culmination of a long series of attacks by Arab groups, and similar earlier reactions, received widespread criticism, and have had far-reaching political consequences, but in contrast there has been little legal analysis of the underlying problems raised by the existence and activities of private groups operating from one country with violent acts against another country or of the remedies available to the State attacked. The political immediacy of these incidents has even led writers to employ circumlocutions or arbitrary cumulations of terms in order, it seems, to avoid committing themselves. In an article discussing the Beirut raid 2) Falk suggests that the language used to characterize acts of violence by non-State groups is either cumbersome or implies a degree of sympathy with, or antipathy to, such activities. He therefore uses such terms as “terrorist”, “guerrilla activity”, “liberation movement” and “freedom fighters” interchangeably. In a reply 3), Blum claims that “guerrilla” is “devoid of implying political values” and uses the word throughout 4).

Questions of international law arising in connection with the “Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Free Trade Association” (Carifta); when Carifta Territories seek to conclude an association agreement in particular, questions of capacity considered in the light of the dependency of the majority of Carifta Territories (section 2), in the light of Articles 30—Relations with International Organizations— and 32(2) —Association— (section 3), and in connection with the existence of a Commonwealth Caribbean Heads of Government Conference (section 4).