The American Convention on Human Rights entered into force in 1978. To date, 18 OAS member states, out of 31, have ratified it. Included among the states parties to the Convention are all the Central American Republics as well as Panama, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The five Andean Pact nations have ratified, as have Jamaica, Barbados and Grenada. Argentina is the latest state to become a party; it did so on September 5, 1984, and thus became the first and, to date, only Southern Cone country to do so. The others—Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay—have not ratified; nor have Brazil, the United States, Suriname and a number of English-speaking Caribbean states.

The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was established in 1922. Article 36, paragraph 2 of its Statute reads:

1. (a) the interpretation of a treaty;

2. (b) any question of international law;

3. (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

4. (d) the nature and extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

The bilateral negotiating process that has been developed to address the central problems of nuclear arms control has evolved to the point that it can be characterized as a proven mechanism for the negotiation of international agreements on these subjects. Even though the process was recently interrupted, and although it by no means represents the only vehicle available for the purpose, history demonstrates that employment of the methodical bilateral process can lead the way, under favorable political conditions, to the resolution of many of the difficult political and technical questions common to the field of nuclear arms control.

Among the more controversial provisions of the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), are the sections dealing with the act of state doctrine in Tentative Draft No. 4. Section 428 provides: “Subject to §429, courts in the United States will refrain from examining the validity of an act of a foreign state taken in its sovereign capacity within the state’s own territory.” This provision, of course, is based on the Supreme Court decision in Sabbatino. The Court there stated, “the Judicial Branch will not examine the validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government” even if it is alleged that the taking is contrary to international law.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, is sparking considerable controversy and will undoubtedly be examined at length in law journals. The events in issue occurred March 8, 1978, when 13 heavily armed members of the Palestine Liberation Organization left Lebanon for Israel under instructions to seize and hold Israeli civilians in ransom for the release of PLO members incarcerated in Israel. On the main highway between Haifa and Tel Aviv, they stopped and seized a civilian bus, a taxi, a passing car, and later a second civilian bus, taking the passengers hostage. While proceeding toward Tel Aviv with their hostages gathered in the first bus, the terrorists fired on and killed numerous occupants of passing cars as well as some of their own passengers. They also tortured some of their hostages. At a shoot-out with the police at a police barricade, the terrorists shot more of their hostages and then blew up the bus with grenades. As a result of the terrorists’ actions, 22 adults and 12 children were killed, and 63 adults and 14 children were seriously wounded.

Professor Anthony D’Amato criticizes a long opinion of Judge Bork rejecting American jurisdiction over various foreign defendants in a tort action growing out of an attack on civilians in Israel by members of the Palestine Liberation Organization. None of the victims was American and there seems to be no connection between the United States and the incident except the temporary presence of agents of various defendants in the United States.

If there were a truth-in-advertising law that applied to essays in the American Journal of International Law, Alfred Rubin’s reply to my article on Judge Bork could be charged with deceptive packaging. His tentative and speculative contentions hardly prove his title statement that I am “seriously mistaken.” Yet his very failure of proof means that my arguments remain valid and that I have suffered no damage. As a result, I may lack standing, or have no cause of action, to bring a case of deceptive advertising against Professor Rubin.

After fifteen years of intensive effort, the nations of the world, with full participation by the United States, produced a comprehensive Convention on the Law of the Sea. In 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States would not become a party to the Convention. But formal abstention from the Convention is hardly a complete national oceans policy for the United States. Indeed, that abstention compels the United States to attend carefully to its posture, in law and policy, toward the Convention itself and to each of its many provisions on matters of major interest to the United States.