Of all the terms in general use in international law none is more challenging than that of “ intervention.” Scarcely any two writers are to be found who define this term in the same way or who classify the same situations under it. To one writer it is the interference of one state in the affairs of another; to a second writer it is “ unwarranted” interference; to a third it is interference in the domestic or internal affairs of the state; to a fourth it is interference in external as well as internal affairs. Some writers include interference of a third state between two belligerents in time of war, by taking sides with one against the other; others include only interference between the parties to a civil war. Some include “ diplomatic intervention,” where the intervening state interferes in behalf of its citizens in cases of alleged denial of justice by the other state; others regard such interference merely as “ interposition,” since it does not involve an attempt to control the character of the foreign government but merely to influence its conduct. Many jurists regard all intervention as illegal; an American jurist constructs an entire volume on international law around the central theme of the right of intervention.

The Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945, states in Article 2 (1) that “ the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Since the outstanding characteristics of the Charter are its recognition of the actual and legal inequality of the Members of the United Nations, and its provisions empowering the Organization to take action, binding on its Members, without their unanimous consent, an understanding of the Charter will be enhanced by placing its dominant features in their conceptual and historical setting.

The distinction between combatants and the civilian population has been characterized not only as one of the fundamental principles of international law, but as its greatest triumph. The purpose of this paper is to show that both in point of fact and in theory the distinction has been so whittled down by the demands of military necessity that it has become more apparent than real. On occasion belligerents still give lip-service to the doctrine but when confronted with a particular military situation in the course of actual combat activities in most cases they have either refused to recognize the distinction or, possibly in order to satisfy the requirements of their legal advisers, have extended the definition of combatant to include almost all important elements of the enemy's civilian population.

As the first working agency of the United Nations, already almost two years old, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration is of special interest to students of international organization. Despite its unique features it has already grappled with many of the problems that will confront all future international organizations. Its financial experience is particularly interesting because all such organizations, whether dealing with political, judicial, or economic subject matter, have very early in their history to go through the difficult process of collecting funds from resolutely sovereign-minded member governments. The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, in view of its coordinating authority over all international specialized agencies, cannot fail to be guided by the results of the financial experience of UNRRA. The International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development can be expected to be especially attentive to UNRRA's experience because, like it, they require the collection of vast funds for more than administrative purposes.

In the course of the last fifty-five years the countries of the Western Hemisphere have developed effective instruments and procedures for cooperative action in many fields of common interest. There is, in the first place, the official governmental machinery for hemispheric cooperation—the Inter- American system—which operates through thirty permanent agencies. There are, furthermore, some thirty-nine semi-official and private agencies (Inter-American, Caribbean, Latin American, and South American regional, as well as bipartite) which have been established in response to recommendations of general or special Inter-American conferences, under the auspices of the government of some one American state, or by private initiative. And, finally, there are seventeen official agencies created by joint action of two states to deal with problems of special interest to them. In all, there are now eighty-six international agencies in the Americas, over half of them governmental. An adequate presentation of this very extensive machinery for collaboration would exceed the scope of an article. We shall only attempt here to show the variety of common interests now served by international agencies in the Western Hemisphere. Of necessity, the description of individual agencies must be rather sketchy but detailed information concerning the history, purposes, internal administration, and accomplishments of all agencies here mentioned may be found in a volume which has just been published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

That man could destroy his civilization has been known, theoretically, for many years; now there is actual proof that he can. Atomic bombs have been unleashed in international society, the results of which have no comparison in history.