Without belittling other functions of the United Nations one must acknowledge that it is hardly capable of taking coercive action in the event of a breach of the peace or of an act of aggression. The United Nations cannot guarantee collective security against aggression, because any permanent member of the Security Council may prevent, by its single veto, the application of sanctions against itself or any other state guilty of aggression. This important gap in the Charter has been filled in by agreements negotiated outside the Organization. The process of negotiating such agreements is not completed, certain areas of the world not being as yet covered by the existing treaties of mutual assistance, but the main lines have already been traced with sufficient clarity.

No branch of international law has been so badly misunderstood and needlessly confused as that of the recognition of new states and new governments. Recognition has been the football of diplomats who have made it mean anything that suited their purpose. It has certainly been grossly abused as a weapon of diplomatic pressure and intervention. It has in many cases proved to be an insoluble puzzle to the courts whose decisions have been sometimes conflicting and confusing. It has been a plaything for the political scientists who have taken delight in posing abstract problems of a theoretical nature.

On November 20, 1948, Chinese Communist Party soldiers, without previous warning, cordoned the United States Consul General's office and the residential compounds of the consular staff at Mukden, China, and subjected the entire United States consular staff and their families to house arrest inside the compounds. The detention lasted over a year. For almost seven months the party was held incommunicado and subjected to numerous privations. Adequate water, light, medical care, and sanitary and roofing repairs were denied, mobility within the compounds was restricted, and members of the staff were subjected to badgering interrogations and examinations.

Substantial contributions to the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice were made during its twenty-eighth year—in two judgments in the Corfu Channel Case, and in an advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. The prospect for the greater activity of the Court improved notably during the year, as a result of the institution of proceedings in three contested cases—between the United Kingdom and Norway, France and Egypt, and Colombia and Peru, respectively; and as a result of three requests emanating from the General Assembly for advisory opinions—concerning questions arising under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania; the competence of the General Assembly to admit new Members of the United Nations; and the international status of South West Africa. On the other hand, the year has not been marked by a great increase in the jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Article 36 (2) of the Statute or otherwise.

During the five years that have elapsed since the close of hostilities in World War II, approximately one-half of the nations of the world have adopted new constitutions or have drastically revised existing ones. While some constitutions have been the products of a more or less regular modification, others have marked a revolutionary, though peaceful, development in conformity with Western political traditions. Some have followed the re-emergence of nations in defeat, and others have signalized the birth of new members of the family of nations. Finally, the régimes of the “People’s Democracy” have established instruments of government which are revolutionary both in their origin and their content.

The United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948, adopted a resolution reciting that “in the course of development of the international community, there will be an increasing need of an international judicial organ for the trial of certain crimes under international law,” and therefore inviting the International Law Commission to study the desirability and possibility of establishing such a judicial organ, in particular as “a Criminal Chamber of the International Court of Justice.” Further, in approving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, the General Assembly endorsed a principle of the greatest import for the codification of international criminal law: that of nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege.

It is the unalterable fate and the inevitable risk of any debt that its value is closely connected with the fate and actions of the debtor whose assets are subject to the liability. This applies especially to the public debts of a belligerent state whose wealth and resources, and sometimes its very existence, are at stake. The domestic laws of almost every civilized country protect the creditor against the effects of legal changes and of non-remunerative mutations affecting all or an important portion of the property subject to the liability. This liability remains with the transferred property. To a certain extent it is legally vested in the person who succeeds to the property rights.

The International Law Commission, established by resolution 174 (II) of the General Assembly (November 21, 1947), has prepared a draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, in conformity with resolution 178 (II) of the General Assembly (November 21, 1947). The first question which arises concerns the legal nature of this Declaration. The draft Declaration was drawn up by the Commission as the text of a resolution to be adopted by the General Assembly.

On the agenda of the Security Council, and regularly listed by the Secretary General among the “matters of which the Security Council is seized” is the item “Question of Hyderabad.” No action has yet been taken by the Security Council on this item, further than keeping it on the agenda; the case has been presented but not discussed. Various interesting questions of international law and of the constitutional law of the United Nations are raised by this situation, which is thus far the worst failure of the United Nations. Equally as interesting political factors are involved, which have in fact had more weight than the legal factors. Only the latter will be considered in this discussion.