Harvard Law School - Yearbook (Cambridge, MA)

Page 28 text:

The Charter has been in operation a little more than a year. The time has been short, but enough to show that it has the vitality of a living Constitution. The organs which it brought into being have functioned and developed. The body of international constitutional law is growing daily, and growing as such a law should, not through theoretical speculation, but out of the controversies and daily work of the constitutional organs. There are other factors which the pessimists should look at more closely. For centuries, international law was a system which concerned states alone. The few instances in which the system was applied to individuals were either archaic, like the crime of piracy, or regional and transitory, like the minorities treaties. The Charter has begun a historic process of breaking through the barriers between the individual and the international legal system. The pro- visions regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms have the breadth and scope of constitutional declarations. Definition and application are needed before they can operate effectively. The domestic jurisdiction in Article 2 of the Charter imposes not too clearly defined limitations. They represent none- theless a solid advance along the road of human liberties. The provisions for the right of petition to the Trusteeship Council by the inhabitants of the trust territories, and of visitation by the Council are again instances where the individual is brought into direct contact with the inter- national community. The American proposals on atomic energy contain impor- tant provisions for control of natural resources by an international agency and the punishment by international authority of individual violators of an inter- national code of rules. This new current in international law has been reinforced from another direction. The Nuremberg trial was a dramatic application of rules of inter- national law to individual and corporate criminals. The principles of law which were there applied have not been permitted to fade into obscurity. At its last session, the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed those principles and resolved that its committee on the codification of interna- tio11al law should treat as a matter of primary importance plans for the for111u- lation, in the context of a general codification of offences against the peace and security of mankind, or of an International Criminal Code, of the principles recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in tl1e Judgment of the Tribunal. At the same time the Assembly declared genocide to be a crime under international law 'Lfor the commission of wl1icl1 principals and accom- plices-whether private individuals, public officials or statesmen . . . are punishable. Here is a catalogue of developments of international law in a few brief months. Compared to the hesitant and vague progress of the preceding centuries these months may well seem epochal to the future historian of the law. In 1930 the nations could not agree on so simple a question as the width of the marginal sea. It may be that they will find difficulty in agreeing on the same question in this decade or even in the next. That is hardly a reason for giving up hope. The record shows that they can agree on matters even more important than the three mile limit. The optimism of the American lawyers fand I hasten to add that there are a good many optimists among the Europeansl is therefore well founded. There 18

Page 27 text:

aw ana! fda Ylnifeol Wafiond By A. H. FELLER Director of the Legal Department of the Secretariat of the United Nations OW that we stand at the beginning of a great effort to develop and codify international law, it is instructive to examine the differing attitudes with which lawyers in the different parts of the world approach the job. Among a number of those in Europe who l1ad participated in the codification work of the League of Nations there exists a serious skepticism, if not defeatism, with regard to the enterprise. They remember and recall tl1e prolonged efforts of the League which l1ad born such disappointingly meagre fruit in the Hague Conference of 1930. There a group of nations had attempted to reach agree- ment on what were supposed to be fairly non-controversial topics-Nationality, llerritorial Vifaters and Responsibility of States. Some, though by no means all, of those who Went through that disappointment, think it almost impossible to make any progress in this unsettled World. They point to the difliculties which members of the United Nations have had in reaching agreement in political and economic questions, and believe that the difliculties would be even greater in the legal field. By contrast, lawyers in the Americas, both North and South, have taken to the subject of the development of international law with an optimism which amounts almost to exuberance. How much justification is there in these con- trasting attitudes? The history of the League codification effort was disappointing, but the pessimists have brooded on it too much. They tend to forget the great develop- ments in international law which the last two years have brought forward. In this period the international community received a new Constitution- the Charter of the United Nations. It is the fashion of the time to concentrate on the weaknesses of the Charter and to overlook, or take for granted its virtues. lt is hardly open to debate that the Charter marks a great advance towards a system of world law. The rule of unanimity of the League, which carried forward the principle of unlimited sovereignty of every state, has been reduced to a point where only the five great powers retain the right of veto. That right remains Ollly in the Security Council. In the other organs, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and in the Trusteeship Council, voting is by simple or two-thirds majority. True enough the rule of unanimity of the great powers prevails in the most important field, where the international body has power to decide and place binding obligations 011 the member states, and has been yielded in those organs which can only lnake 1'6COIl11l'l6Ild21l1l0l1S. The fact remains that fifty of the fifty-five members have bound themselves to obey the decisions of the Security Council without right of veto, and all of them have greed to permit a majority vote of the nations in the enormous field covered by the General Assembly and the other Councils. This is not the World Parliament, but it is a long way forward from the international anarchy of the past centuries. 17

Page 29 text:

are, however, some dangers in the enthusiasm of some of the professional asso- ciations. No one should be in ally doubt that the work of codification will be slow, and often discouraging. The essential political and economic differences between nations are apparent to everyone. These differences find their reflection in legal problems as well. The danger lies in the too easy disillusion which so often succeeds too easy diseouragement. YVe have already seen this in those members of the public who made up their minds that the United Nations was finished because the Security Council had not solved all of the problems of the peace in the first month of its existence. The General Assembly was well aware of the need for diligent planning. At its New York session it set up a colnmittee of 17 states with a carefully defined mandateg the committee is called upon to study the methods by which the General Assembly should encourage 'thc progressive development of inter- national law and its eventual codifieation, methods of securing the cooperation of the several organs of the United Nations, and methods of enlisting the assist- ance of national and international bodies. ln addition to its consideration of methods, the committee is called upon to consider plans for the formulation of two substantive problems, one the draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States submitted by Panama, and the other the principles applied by 'the Nuremberg Tribunal. The committee has no general mandate to go into tl1e whole field of international law and its codifieation. It has enough 011 its agenda for a serious beginning. When the Charter was in the process of adoption, there was some doubt as to whether its basis would be purely political or whether the rule of law would be brought into its framework. The proponents of law won out. The first paragraph of the first Article now proclaims as one of the purposes of the United Nations the settlement of international disputes 'Gin conformity with the principles of justice and international law. The General Assembly is authorized to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codihcation. The inter- national law of the past was as weak and as fragmentary as international society was disorganized and unstable. The nations are now attempting to build an integrated and secure community. The authors of tl1e Charter and the members of the General Assembly have shown that they know that such a community must be based on a sound and workable legal system. 19