“Whether by accident or design, oil pollution is a statistical certainty that will exist as long as oil is moved by sea.” The truth of this observation, certainly as far as accidents are concerned, has been illustrated in the recent spate of oil tanker incidents. The North American continent, the Canadian coastline included, has not been spared from such incidents.

An examination of the circumstances of tanker accidents over the years reveals certain recurring factors. In many instances the accidents are due to human error. In other instances subsequent examination has revealed faulty equipment despite examination and certification by reputable classification societies. Another element which complicates matters is the pressures under which masters operate in meeting schedules or in deciding whether to call in salvors, at great expense to shipowners, when confronted with breakdown of vital equipment.

A la premiere Conférence des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, qui a abouti à la rédaction des quatre Conventions de 1958, les Etats participants se sont d’abord et avant tout attachés à la codification des règles coutumières du droit de la mer. Comme c’est malheureusement trop souvent le cas lors de ces négociations internationales, on s’est peu préoccupé de la question du règlement des différends. Ainsi, un système de règlement obligatoire des différends n’a été prévu que pour les pêcheries en haute mer. De plus, ce système n’a été accepté que par environ trente Etats et, surtout, il n’a jamais été utilisé. Pour ce qui est des différends pouvant résulter de l’interprétation et de l’application des autres conventions de 1958, on n’a préparé qu’un protocole facultatif qui conférait juridiction à la Cour internationale de justice. Les signataires de ce protocole furent d’ailleurs très peu nombreux, moins de quarante en fait; et, parmi ceux-ci, ne figurent ni les Etats-Unis, ni l’U.R.S.S., deux pays qui s’opposaient au règlement obligatoire des différends à ce momentlà.

Perhaps the most important contribution made by Canada to the development of armed conflict law, and one that is possibly equal in significance to that made by any other country, was not in fact made by Canada as such, but rather in response to Canadian actions. During the 1837 rebellion, Canadian forces had seized an American vessel, The Caroline, which had been used to support the rebels, and tipped it over Niagara Falls. In response to United States protests, the Canadian authorities justified their action on the ground of self-defence. In negotiations with the British, who then governed Canada, Daniel Webster, United States Secretary of State, propounded a formulation of the plea of self-defence which has stood the test of time. In his words, preventive action in foreign territory is only justified in the case of “an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defence, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” This concept of the right is so universally accepted today that it was adopted in its Judgment by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg when rejecting Germany’s explanations of the invasions of Denmark and Norway.

Warships are designed for fighting in war. In peacetime, the primary task of warships and of their crews is to prepare for war. At the same time, because they are a visible embodiment of force, they may, at the pleasure of the executive, be employed on other tasks where the display of force is useful, such as the protection of sovereignty or the enforcement of laws both domestic and international. Some countries — the United States is an example — as a matter of principle, do not use warships to assist in the enforcement of national laws. Others, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, do use warships for such tasks. As a matter of practice, however, Canadian warships are rarely used for law enforcement against Canadian vessels.

For more than a quarter century, large-diameter pipeline systems have been crossing and recrossing the international boundary between Canada and the United States as though that political demarcation line did not exist. Over the years these pipelines have carried large volumes of Canadian oil and gas to American markets and two of them, Interprovincial Pipe Line Limited in the case of oil, and TransCanada PipeLines Limited in the case of natural gas, have also moved Canadian source oil and gas through the United States to reach markets in eastern Canada.

This article examines the choice of law methods developed in four legal systems for problems relating to the substantial or essential validity of contracts. The complicated questions of formation and capacity have had to be left aside. The first two parts of this article discussed the choice of law methods used by courts in France, Germany, and the United States. This concluding part deals with the law in England and the common law jurisdictions in Canada, and also, by way of epilogue, with the recently completed European Communities Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Finally, some general conclusions will be offered about the patterns of law that have emerged in the course of this survey.

In recent years considerable scholarly interest has been shown in the protracted dispute between the Canadian federal government and its counterpart in Newfoundland and Labrador concerning ownership and jurisdiction over the mineral resources of the continental shelf adjacent and geologically appertaining to the Province of Newfoundland. It is to be expected that the promise of commercial deposits of oil and natural gas indicated during the 1980 drilling season, and the much-publicized discussions between the two governments as to the basis for a possible political solution to the question, will stimulate increased study of the pertinent issues in academic as well as governmental circles.

The task … is to restructure existing relationships between suppliers and recipients of technology so as to facilitate the Third World’s access to the accumulated promise of mankind’s scientific and technological achievements.

Developed countries have offered the example of industrial societies based upon technology and the fruits of technological endeavour. The result has been that the process of effectively transferring technology is now widely perceived as an indispensible element for improving the economic lot of less advantaged nations. Less developed countries (LDCs) have recognized that the existing legal mechanisms and practices for the transfer of technology, established predominantly by public and private actors in advanced economies, have not served their interests and, indeed, may have prejudiced their efforts to acquire an indigenous technological capability which would enable them to achieve their primary objective of independent economic development. Thus the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has undertaken the negotiation and drafting of an International Code of Conduct with a view to redressing the apparent inequities of the system as presently constituted. With diplomatically phrased understatement, an early UNCTAD report on the task ahead observed that “transactions involving the transfer of technology have occurred in a manner which has not produced entirely satisfactory results for developing countries.”

Malgré l’impressionnante somme de papier produite par le débat international sur la radiodiffusion directe par satellites (R.D.S.), celui-ci n’a toujours pas permis d’en arriver à un ensemble cohérent de principes directeurs applicables en la matière. C’est pourtant là le but avoué de ces discussions, qui cherchent à assurer l’encadrement juridique de la mise en service prochaine d’une technologie aujourd’hui au stade pré-opérationnel. Suite à la dernière réunion du Sous-Comité juridique du Comité des utilisations pacifiques de l’espace extra-atmosphérique des Nations Unies (C.U.P.-E.E.A.), le projet de principe maintes fois révisé sur les "consultations et accords entre Etats" demeure entièrement exprimé entre crochets. On se voit donc obligé de conclure, pour le moment et l’avenir immédiat, à l’échec de ce processus de réglementation dont les origines remontent à près de deux décennies.

The actions of india on May 18, 1974 reinforced the fears of forecasters of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Indian detonation of a nuclear device gave tremendous credence to the “Nth” power theory, but more importantly revealed the inadequacy of moral suasion and the need for only peaceful uses of nuclear energy as the basis for nuclear non-proliferation. Since Canada had co-operated with India in the construction of the CIRUS reactor from which the plutonium for the Indian explosion was produced, much attention has been focused upon Canadian actions in co-operation and transfer of nuclear energy technology. The impetus provided by the action of India has produced an insistence by Canada and other nuclear energy suppliers for stricter safeguards to avoid further state action in obtaining nuclear explosive capability.

Over the last decade several proposals have been made for the creation of an international wildlife range between northeast Alaska and northern Yukon Territory, and for a convention between Canada and the United States to regulate the Porcupine caribou herd. The herd, one of the largest barren ground caribou herds in North America, regularly migrates across the United States-Canadian boundary. It is harvested in both countries by Indians and Inuit. Since the vitality of the caribou herd may be affected by developments on either side of the border, such as overharvesting, construction of pipelines or highways, influx of tourists, open access hunting policies, and oil and gas drilling, the herd requires co-operative management.