One of the most persuasive arguments advanced by the advocates of the repeal of the Connally Amendment has been its “boomerang effect.” While it was intended to protect the vital interests of the United States as a respondent, it also protected, on the basis of reciprocity and perhaps less intentionally, the respondent state in a case instituted before the International Court of Justice by the United States as the applicant.

The establishment of an effective rule of law in the international society, we have been told time and again, is the only way to save the world from the danger of its plunging into the holocaust of an atomic-missile war which, if it ever comes, will mean an over-all destruction.

The United States-Japanese Property Commission is a recent example of the successful use of an international arbitral commission to settle disputes between sovereign nations.

The trials of war criminals which occurred subsequent to World War II resulted in a veritable flood of learned books and articles reporting on these trials and discussing their propriety and their legal significance.

In an era of propaganda warfare it is dangerous to condone the misuse of words. Words with a well-defined legal meaning, such as “intervention,” should not be loosely used in a non-technical sense outside the context in which they have been developed.

In a recent well-documented article Domke has criticized this writer for not having cited a single case for a proposition contained in the writer’s book, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht.

In his editorial comment, “Some Legal Aspects of the Berlin Crisis,” Professor Quincy Wright questions the legal soundness of the Western position with respect to the Four-Power status of Berlin.

The doctrinal approach of international lawyers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries has been viewed by some as rigid.

The American Society of International Law is offering a small number of research fellowships for (1) studies of the legal aspects of space activities and (2) studies of the international legal problems of federalism.

At its fourth meeting in November, 1960, the Committee had recognized that Foreign Relations was “faced with a crisis of major proportions.” Taking note of “the fantastic expansion of materials in the archives of the State Department during the war and post-war years, an expansion which reflects the enlarged role of the United States in world affairs,”