I would like to address myself to some of the issues of nationalism which I think are implicit in the developments we have seen not only in the mineral field, but also in industrial and economic fields. We seem to be entering into what might be called a third generation of relationships between developed countries and the developing world. As has been pointed out, the day in which the major commercial interests of the metropolitan powers constituted very much a Taw unto themselves has given way to a transitional period marked by hostility and uncertainties in relations between the representatives of the industrialized and the developing nations. Such times are characterized by mutual suspicion and even now hardly a day passes that we do not read about some threatened or actual takeovers, whether it be foreign insurance companies in India or copper mines in Chile.

Our first question is one of terminology. We have used a great many of these terms very loosely. We still talk in terms of “concession agreements.” The meaning of that term has shifted. It now stands for a much broader concept than it did before. It is now an all-embracing term seemingly covering any agreement between a government and an operator for the exploration and production of mineral resources. I do not think it is an accurate enough term any longer. We lawyers have not been inventive; we have distinctions with differences within the broad term “concession.” We now have operating or production agreement, development agreement, profit-sharing agreement, contract of work, management agreement, and service agreement. These terms mean different things; they bring different results. They represent different relationships between the government and the operator.

Transnational law includes municipal law, public international law, and conflicts, including some attention to comparative law. For example, the international arbitration between the Arabian-American Oil Company and the Government of Saudi Arabia required George Sauser-Hall, the arbitrator, to weigh all of these variables. When you consider working in this field you should realize that you are concerned with politics, economics, and different bodies of law and also with great areas of uncertainty. I suppose that the current ITT case with $92 millions of investment insurance is a good example of the uncertainty when a political and legal situation gets mixed up.

May I also say that I feel somewhat of a fraud speaking about transnational practice. I describe myself as a small town practitioner since I am a member of the English Bar where we have only about 2,000 practitioners. I would like to present here two points of view which may prove useful. One is the problem of the English Bar at the present juncture and the other is the new important dimension of practice in the European Community.

I think I am the only current “international organization man” on this roundtable. Into my few minutes I will therefore attempt to squeeze a brief sketch of the lawyer in an international organization, more particularly the United Nations where all my practical experience has been.

I ought to point out first that my own practice is primarily corporate practice dealing with international business between Japan and the United States. Contract drafting is probably what I do most of, that and contract negotiations. In my field, many of the negotiations are not polite; they involve role playing on both sides and often extreme misunderstandings on both sides. I think, in addition to a good law background, the most important element in practice, especially in relations between Asia and the United States, is knowledge of an Asian language and a cultural familiarity with the countries where you specialize. To be able to communicate with your own client, and to be able to communicate for your client with the Japanese company across the table, knowledge of the language is absolutely essential. Also, I think my type of practice—that is practice with Asia—illustrates something that has happened in American law practice during the last ten years. The causes are primarily the revolution in transportation and something called the telex machine. Before 1960 it was impossible to get to Tokyo from New York in less than 26 hours. Now I go almost every month; it takes 16 hours. If you are representing Japanese clients in the United States it is necessary, I think, to meet the people in the Tokyo home office. Japanese abide greatly by this type of personal contact. It also helps to eliminate misunderstanding between a lawyer and his client. More and more lawyers, especially out of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington are traveling around the world with their practices following them. If you have support services in various cities, there is usually no problem. You can travel, especially if your secretary and the people you work with out of the office from which you originate can handle the minor problems that come up. The telex machine has become extremely important. This is partly because of the time lag. Japan is almost exactly twelve hours opposite from the United States. My clients’ legal departments can handle minor negotiations and telex questions to me or ask me to draft particular positions. By getting background by telex, I can do this on an overnight basis so that in effect their legal department works 24 hours a day. This has the added benefit that sometimes the Japanese clients are able to disguise from the opposing American side the fact that they are using a large New York law firm.

I come here with two hats on, one of Edward Martin, who was unable to be here, and the other is my own, which is that of one straight out of law school and practicing only for a few months.

Mr. Martin asked me to impress upon you the fact that it is very difficult to practice transnational law without fully understanding the culture and the laws of the foreign nation with which you are dealing. It is difficult to sit in New York and keep current with the law and thinking and certain forecasting that you have to do in the practice of law.

Like Mr. Stevens, I am engaged in the practice of international corporate law. I would like to outline briefly my view of the role of the practising U.S. attorney whose clients are involved in international transactions—the “transnational lawyer.” These lawyers should be competent to give advice on the laws of more than one country and must be able to evaluate the relative legal advantages of particular business decisions as they are affected by the laws of one country or another. Typically, the transnational lawyer will represent a business enterprise in its operations abroad, or he may represent a foreign enterprise in connection with its operations in the United States. In the latter capacity, his considerations are generally no different than those of his fellow “domestic” corporate lawyer. Although the decisions of the foreign business enterprise may be affected by the laws of its domicile, the legal considerations for the U.S. attorney are usually those of any transaction occurring domestically.

Let me start by relating two points I think most Americans are in agreement about at this time: the first is a widely shared sense of relief that includes both critics and supporters of our earlier policy that the direct American combat role in Vietnam at least is apparently over, and that American forces, both prisoners of war and ground troops, have been repatriated and withdrawn. It must be understood that this point of initial agreement is not so substantial if considered more closely.

The topic assigned to us today is “The Justness of the Peace.” I take it from what Mr. Falk has said that he thinks the peace is unjust because it involves support for the Thieu regime, which he regards as cruel and unjust. He discussed various shortcomings of that regime from the point of view of democratic theory without comparing it in these respects to its rival in North Vietnam.

At the request of the President, the members rose and observed a moment of silence in memory of those members who had died during the past year.

The President announced that the Executive Council, on the recommendation of the Committee on Annual Awards, had decided that the Certificate of Merit be awarded to Cyril E. Black and Richard A. Falk for their four-volume work The Future of the International Legal Order.

It is a custom of this Society to allow its President each year a few moments for his say. On occasion, this has thrown up gems for thought, such as Harold Lasswell’s essay of a year ago. Today may be a different matter. But tradition must be served.

There is really nothing one could add to the patent for this organization which Professor Lasswell laid down last year. So I propose a few reflections about the broader topic of the new world politics, and what it may mean for our chosen calling, of which this Society is, of course, the central professional institution.

It is fair to say that this Society at this juncture is in good shape, not least because of the constant care that Bill Rogers, as President, has given to Society affairs in matters large and small and the great skill he has brought to their disposition.

Our membership seems to be on an undulating plateau. We have gained about 100 members since last year, but the composition of our membership has shifted somewhat and in a way that is disquieting, disquieting at least insofar as it represents a drop in income. While we have had a gain in nonresident membership, and that is a happy thing, and in student membership and have about managed to break even, with some effort, in our regular membership, we have lost a number of professional members, those persons members of the bar for more than ten years. They pay the highest dues, which are by no means high relative to those of other professional associations.

The Society has three separate kinds of research and study activities. The largest component of the program is in the form of research and study panels and the various working groups which these panels form for the pursuit of particular projects. As of the end of the year with which we are concerned, 17 panels were in operation at various stages of their life span, and some eight working groups. Two or three panels were phased out and two or three new panels created so that the numerical level of activity over the year remained about the same.

I take great pleasure in welcoming you to the Society’s Annual Dinner. The fact that we are all here tonight is a kind of collective rejection of the view a cynical friend of mine suggested the other day: that the practice of international law is analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.