1. On 7th November, 1957, nearly two weeks before the debate on Western New Guinea (“West Irian”) opened in the (twelfth) General Assembly of the United Nations, President Sukarno declared in a speech: “So far we have waged the struggle for the freedom of West Irian in the United Nations. But if the U.N. is unable to help us, we shall resort to means which will startle the world.” What these means were was soon to become apparent, after the resolution on New Guinea sponsored by Indonesia and 18 other countries had failed to obtain a two thirds-majority—or even, indeed, an absolute majority—in the vote in the General Assembly on 29th November, 1957.

In a speech before the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the United Nations General Assembly a few years ago, the representative of Israel, Dr. Jacob Robinson, pointed out that the area to which international law was applicable had expanded enormously in recent years owing to the emergence of many independent States. “Although these States had only recently gained their independence, they were the heirs to ancient civilizations and some way had to be found to combine their ancient traditions with the body of international law as developed in modern times”, he said. In drawing attention in this way to the problem of fusing ancient legal traditions to the main stream pf modern public international law, Dr. Robinson was giving expression to what has been a feature of the philosophical development of international law ever since it emerged during the seventeenth century. Without questioning the postulate of the universality of international law (although the term itself is subject to many, and at times irreconcilable, or at least conflicting, interpretations), it is generally recognized that international law, both in its substantive rules and in its procedures, is on the one hand influenced by, and on the other may, indeed must, draw upon, the general legal experience of mankind. Positive acknowledgment of these tendencies is found in Article 9 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which enjoins that the body of judges as a whole shall assure the representation of the ‘main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world’, a formula which, whatever other purposes it was designed to serve, also draws attention to certain features of what might be termed the intellectual elements of public international law, and as such, as is being increasingly recognized, it has wider implications.

La Dixième Session de la Commission du Droit international eut lieu immédiatement après la Conférence sur le Droit de la Mer. Douze membres de la Commission avaient assisté à la Conférence et pendant cinq mois ceux-ci ont pu profiter de l'hospitalité de Genève.

According to the pronouncements of the International Court of Justice, rules of municipal law have to be regarded, from the standpoint of international law, as mere facts. This docs not prevent these “facts” from having legal consequences under international law, as they often do: to that extent they are not “mere” facts but legal facts (faits juridiques; rechtsfeiten). In quite a number of cases international tribunals, including the International Court itself, had to interpret rules of municipal law of a State because of their being relevant to a legal dispute between States.

There is hardly any other expression more used in international relations, speeches, books and newspapers of the present time than that of “Sovereignty and independence”. This expression certainly represents something else in politics than in the legal field, in theory and in the practice of international life. The problem of the sovereignty of States is an extremely vast subject since sovereignty, conceived as freedom of action of the State inside and outside its territory, constitutes a counterpart of international law. As one of the great international lawyers rightly points it out, “What is sovereignty is not law; what is law is not sovereignty. All law is based on an abandonment of sovereignty …”.

One of the greatest deficiencies of international law is certainly the lack of any centralized interpretation. By this is meant the problem of ascertaining the meaning of the rules of international law, and more especially of the provisions of documents such as the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations, and of defining the rights these treaties give and the obligations they impose.

Publicists who, in our century, recognize sovereignty to be a quality of States as subjects of international law, may be divided into three categories:

A. Publicists who consider sovereignty to be a basic criterion of the State as subject of international law, and a foundation of the whole system of this law. According to their view, sovereignty is the rule, and limitation of sovereignty is an exception to the rule under international law. They base their conclusions on international treaties, awards and judgements of international tribunals and Courts, as well as on diplomatic practice. They stress respect of the principle Pacta stint servanda, and the subjection of the State to international law which the State co-created, or to which it acceded

The Netherlands are a party to the Hague Convention of 1902 on marriage and to the Geneva Convention of 1954 relating to the status of refugees. Hungary is a party to the former, but not to the latter. The Hague Convention declares that the capacity to marry of the parties is generally determined by their personal law (i.c. the law of their nationality), whereas the Geneva Convention provides that tile personal status of refugees shall be governed by the law of their domicile (or residence); this status includes the capacity to marry.

Now if Hungarian refugees, living in Holland, wish to marry there these rules may lead to opposed results: in some cases the Hungarians do not comply with the provisions of Hungarian internal law although they fulfil the requirements of Dutch internal law. Which conflicts rule has to be applied? That of the Hague Convention or that of the Geneva Convention?

The author demonstrates that neither Dutch law nor the law of nations contains rules providing for a solution of this conflict of treaty-rules. He concludes that Dutch authorities should act in favorem matrimonii and apply the law admitting the marriage.

Sans doute la Huitième Session de la Conférence a marqué un pas important dans l'histoire de notre vénérable institution. En fait, ce fut la première réunion après l'entrée en vigueur du Statut de la Conférence, et l'on peut constater, en examinant l'Acte final, que la Session a été pleinement consciente du degré de permanence et de continuité dans les travaux qui devra dorénavant caractériser la nouvelle organisation. Les résolutions prises à l'égard des activités futures témoignent d'une pleine confiance dans l'avenir et dans le rôle que pourraient jouer les organes permanents de la Conférence — Commission d'Etat néerlandaise pour la codification du droit international privé et Bureau Permanent — dans la préparation de la Neuvième Session (prévue pour 1960).

Le 25 mars 1957 les Gouvernements du Royaume de Belgique, de la République Fédérate d'Allemagne, de la République Française, de la République Italienne, du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg et du Royaume des Pays-Bas signèrent le Traité instituant la Communauté Economique Européenne. Par la conclusion de ce Traité les Etats membres s'engagent de diriger leur politique économique vers les objectifs mentionnés dans ce Traité. A cet efFet un marché commun sera créé dont la tǎche sera d'établir une vaste zone de politique économique commune, constituant une puissante unité de production, et permettant une expansion continue, une stabilité accrue, un relèvement accéléré du niveau de vie, et le developpement de relations harmonieuses entre les Etats qu'il réunit.

1. A person who enters the territory of a foreign country, thereby becomes subject to the operation of the law of that country. This rule of international law has been incorporated in the national legislations of the contemporary States. In so far as concerns penal legislation it is, for example, in the Netherlands laid down in article 8 of the “Act containing general principles of the legislation of the Kingdom” of 15 May 1829 (S. 28) and in article 2 of the Penal Code. Article 13a of the said Act and article 8 of the Code explicitly provide that the limitations of this “territorial principle” are to be found in international law. Among them are the rules on exterritoriality which can originate from either custom or treaty. The question to be examined here is whether there is a rule of customary law according to which members of visiting forces in the territory of a friendly foreign State are entitled to exterritoriality in criminal matters wholly or partly.

1. La Convention sur la loi applicable aux obligations alimentaires envers les enfants apporte une solution originale tant par le point de rattachement qu'elle consacre — la résidence habituelle — que par le fait qu'elle isole l'obligation alimentaire de toute autre question pour la soumettre à un régime propre. Des voix autorisées ont commenté et justifié les solutions choisies. Notre but est plus modeste, nous voudrions démontrer, d'une part que la Convention instaure réellement un régime uniforme en ce sens que la détermination de la loi compétente et la délimitation de son domaine sont largement à l'abri de divergences entraînées par des qualifications nationales, et d'autre part que l'isolement de la question alimentaire ne doit pas entraîner de difficultés dans l'application de la loi déclarée compétente, même si cette loi relie étroitement l'obligation alimentaire à la filiation. Enfin nous recherchons l'incidence d'un état de filiation déjà établi sur l'action alimentaire.

„The bridge over the river Kwai” is een film, spelende in de tweede Wereldoorlog, die zowel hier te lande als in het buitenland een grote indruk heeft gemaakt. Slechts weinige films is het beschoren, in onze grote steden meer dan 5 maanden achtereen dagelijks volle zalen te trekken. De film behandelt een onderwerp, dat ook volkenrechtelijk van belang is, en daarom is het wellicht de moeite waard, enige aandacht aan het daarin behandelde probleem te wijden.

Comme nous l'avons fait les années précédentes, nous nous proposons d'exposer brièvement dans les lignes qui suivent les activités que les institutions, installées au Palais de la Paix, ont déployées au cours de l'année 1957.

Bij de legenwoordige zware belastingdruk oefent de vrijstelling van belasting over genoten inkomen, aan bepaalde functies op internationaal terrein verbunden, een magische werking uit op hen, die niet op dit voorrecht kunnen aanspraak maken. Met ontstemming nemen zij, die een groot deel van hun zuur verdiende penningen in de grijpgrage handen van de fiscus zien verdwijnen, kennis van het feit, dat de naar hun oordeel toch reeds buitensporig hoge salarissen, op dit gebied betaald, bovendien nog vrij van belasting zijn. Het kornt ons wel nuttig voor in deze tijd, nu het scheppen van nieuwe internationale organen aan de orde van de dag is, aan deze vrijstellingen enkele beschouwingen te wijden.

In recent years, the problem of determining correctly the extraterritorial effect of the Sherman Act has gained considerable importance. Since the end of World War II, the United States Justice Department has been active and successful in its endeavors to have American and foreign businessmen operating abroad exposed to the impact of the American antitrust laws. Recent judicial pronouncements have left the feelings of the persons concerned as well as the law in a state of turmoil. If anything in the antitrust field is certain, the businessman's position in foreign commerce is definitely uncertain.

The impending tenth anniversary of the ratification of the United Nations' Charter in 1955 gave rise to a great deal of activity both inside and outside the organization preparatory to a statutory review of the Charter.

The direct occasion for this were the provisions of Article 109, par. 3, which authorize the General Assembly to convene a review conference by a simple majority vote, if within the first ten years of its existence such a conference has not been held, a situation which indeed obtained.

Extensive preparatory work on the technical level was undertaken by many governments and notably by the Secretariat in their Repertoire of Practice of the Security Council and Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs; on the other hand political preparations, essential since the results of any review are subject to the “veto”, were sadly neglected.

Indicative of this situation was the announcement early in the debate by one of the permanent members of the Security Council (the U.S.A.) that they were disinterested in a technical review of the Charter, and that their main objective was the amending of Article 27 (3) in the sense that the admission of new members would seize to be subject to the “veto”. This proposition was, as could have been expected, wholly unacceptable to the Soviet-Union and their allies. Under these circumstances several members, especially from the Scandinavian countries, were quite willing to suspend the proceedings until a better political climate would prevail.

Yet the unique feature of Article 109 (3) which obviously could never again be applied continued to fascinate a majority of members. Finally in Resolution 992 (X) an ingeneous solution was found, by which a decision in principle to hold the Review Conference ex Article 109 (3) was made, while at the same time the actual date of the Conference was deferred for at least another two years. Both the political wisdom and the legality of this Resolution have been questioned, in the view of the author on good grounds.

Whatever the concrete results of these deliberations held during the Tenth Assembly in plenary sessions, some indications have at least been given which parts of the Charter in the view of member states could bear review. In addition to Articles 2 (7) and 27 (3) which are of course the basic points of the power relationship within the organization, and which for that matter are most unlikely ever to be changed, the incorporation of the Uniting for Peace Resolution, 377 (V) and the elimination of the term “enemy states” in Articles 53, 77 and 107 were advocated. It is perhaps an ironical commentary on the situation that one of the most forceful speeches in this debate was the one recommending a thorough overhaul of the whole of Chapter XVIII, the amendment procedure itself.

Meanwhile nothing illustrates better the present bleak outlook for charter review than the proposals introduced in 1956 to amend Articles 23 and 61 of the Charter and Article 2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, with a view of increasing the membership of the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Court under the provisions of Article 108, proposed by the Latin-American states and Spain. These proposals are motivated mainly by the progressively less satisfactory distribution of the non-permanent seats on the Security Council, which in turn is based on a “gentlemen's agreement” concluded in London in 1946, but on whose continued validity the Western and Eastern powers hold divergent views. This situation has become more urgent since the recent admission of a great number of Asian and African states for whom, even if the gentleman's agreement were observed to the letter, no place would seem to be available on that Council.

The belief prevails that unless the Councils be enlarged, eventually the Latin-American representation is bound to be decreased, which explains the initiative taken by that group.

Progress on these proposals has been thwarted by the Soviet-Union on the one hand by the injection of the China representation issue, and on the other by the insistence on ironclad guarantees on behalf of their Eastern European allies. The plans so far advanced have, however, also been deemed unsatisfactory by several non-European members, notably those from Africa.

Neither the eleventh nor the twelfth Assembly have been able to find a compromise agreeable to all the interested parties, and thus these proposals like those for a Charter Review Conference are being held over for future sessions.