Since there exists no international judicial system to adjudicate international claims in the ordinary course of events, individuals and business enterprises with grievances against a foreign country have looked, both jointly and severally, either to the “espousal” of their claims by their government—a discretionary act guaranteeing no ultimate redress—or, assuming their government has been able to negotiate a compromis with the foreign country involved, to the adjudication of their claims by an ad hoc international tribunal, almost always one without funds from which to pay awards once rendered. However, the volume and complexity of the claims spawned by World War II, the arrival of Marxist governments in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and the emergence of an economically restless Third World have rendered the espousal process increasingly less effective; and efforts to establish ad hoc international tribunals have been almost uniformly unproductive during the past four decades (the Algerian Accords establishing the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal being the rare exception that proves the general proposition).

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, also known as the Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, was adopted by the 18th Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), held in Nairobi in June 1981. Contrary to some expectations, the Charter stayed in limbo for only 5 years. It entered into force on October 21, 1986, after the deposit of the 26th instrument of ratification, the number required by its Article 63(3). By April 16, 1987, there were 33 states parties to the Charter, which makes it the largest regional human rights system in existence.

The American Journal of International Law welcomes short communications from its readers. It reserves the right to determine which letters should be published and to edit any letters printed. Letters should conform to the same format requirements as other manuscripts.

For the past 7 years, Monroe Leigh has edited this section with the able assistance of his associates at Steptoe & Johnson. His fine eye for accuracy and his fairness remain as standards for “his successors. The Journal acknowledges its great debt to him and to his firm.

In this first decision by the United States Supreme Court on the scope and application of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, better known as the Hague Service Convention, petitioner, a West German company, challenged the respondent’s attempt to serve process on petitioner by serving its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary in accordance with the state’s rules rather than pursuant to the procedures of the Convention. The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, found that the relationship between the German parent and the U.S. subsidiary was such that, under state-law rules of agency, the U.S. subsidiary was the parent’s involuntary agent for service of process. Because service could thus be perfected entirely within the United States, the court held that it was not necessary to follow the procedures of the Hague Service Convention. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court (per O’Connor, J.) affirmed and held: (1) the Hague Service Convention is “mandatory” and preempts inconsistent state-law methods of service in all cases to which it applies; (2) the Convention applies where there is occasion to transmit a document abroad to charge persons with formal notice of a pending action; and (3) whether it is necessary to transmit a document abroad for such purposes is determined by the forum state’s internal law.

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.