On February 27, 1973, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics indicated its intention to accede to the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC). Soon thereafter, Soviet copyright legislation was substantially amended. Many of the consequences of Soviet accession to the UCC and of the new Soviet copyright legislation could be deduced immediately from the relevant provisions of Soviet and American law and the UCC itself. Nevertheless, many completely erroneous analyses of the legal significance of the Soviet action were published in the press of the United States and Western Europe. How the USSR would implement its copyright policy

The use of Arab oil as an instrument of pressure for the revival of dormant efforts to restore peace in the Middle East was already a popular demand in many Arab countries before the outbreak of Arab-Israeli hostilities in October 1973. The political argument was simple. Production of oil beyond certain limits did not make economic sense for many Arab countries. Their depleting crude was increasingly converted into depreciating dollars and pounds yielding in fact a lower economic return than that achieved by simply keeping it in the ground. Worse still, this conversion was taking place in countries with few alternative resources and with a rather limited absorption capacity for the generated funds. Unchecked production was thus an economic sacrifice that could only be interpreted as a political favor to the consuming countries. Instead of responding positively to such a favor, the United States and most of its Western allies continued to ignore the vital interests of the Arab states. In particular, they either acquiesced in or actually encouraged the continuation of Israel's territorial expansion at the expense of its neighboring Arab states,1 and of its refusal to implement the United Nations resolutions on the rights of the Arab Palestinian people

The Antarctic continent played no important part in international politics or international law before the present century,1 but scientific interest has been sustained for a much longer period. Shortly before and particularly during World War II, the strategic importance of the territory was recognized and the race to acquire new territory and to secure positions reached a new dimension of importance and urgency. The first important claim was made by Great Britain in 1908 and the last by Norway in 1939.2 Subsequent to that time several incidents have occurred, and many efforts have been made to find a reasonable solution for some of the problems of the Antarctic

The United Nations General Assembly has convened a new Conference on the Law of the Sea. Its object is to achieve comprehensive agreement on the international law of the sea. Most if not all members of the United Nations, as well as other states, can be expected to attend the substantive session in Caracas this summer.

National claims, whether made unilaterally or at the regional or subregional level, play a fundamental role in the development of the law regarding the exploration, exploitation, and conservation of natural resources of the sea. The contribution to this body of law made by the Latin American countries has no parallel in any other group of countries or region. This contribution has been not only fruitful but extremely varied. Nevertheless, when the different types or categories of claims are analyzed, importantsimilarities can be noted among the more recentclaims

The object of this article is to examine the role of insurance in international claims,and in particular the relationship of subrogation to the traditional rules of diplomatic protection and nationality of claims. Among the questions to be examined is that of locus standi of insurers in international claims (meaning in this context the standing of a state to present a claim of an insurer to an international tribunal, or to espouse it through diplomatic channels), the nationality of the insurers in relation to that of the insured, and the effect upon an international claim of payment by insurers possessing the nationality of State A to victims of an international wrong possessing the nationality of either State A or of State B. Can State C, which has caused the injury in circumstances involving its international responsibility towards State B, invoke the performance of the insurance contracts, in accordance with which the payments have been made, to deny its responsibility on the ground that the rules of nationality of claims have not been respected? If the insurers have covered the damage suffered in part only, would the quantum of the claim be affected&

The month of October, 1973, brought with it Arab coercion in two forms: the first was the military attack against Israeli forces begun on October 6 ; the second was the use of economic coercion against countries that, in Arab eyes, either supported Israel or did not support the Arabs in their present quests (which include the return of claimed “Arab” lands, favorable settlement of the Palestinian peoples' claim for self-determination, and other political and military objectives).

There has been, in recent years, a growing concern about the international legal implications of the computer storage of data outside the country where the information originated. The purpose of this article is to show that there are grounds for this concern but that these grounds cannot be fully understood, nor the problems properly assessed, without looking into the issues raised by computer data storage in the broader context of the transborder flow of information by electronic means.

The most distinctive feature of the European Convention on Human Rights is the optional procedure under Article 25, whereby an individual claiming to be a victim of a violation of one of the rights guaranteed by the Convention may present a complaint against his own (or another) government to the European Commission of Human Rights for investigation. Thus the individual is given direct access to an international tribunal and is recognized as having the standing necessary to pursue his rights under international law.

The final preambular paragraph of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties affirms “that the rules of customary internationallaw will continue to govern questions not regulated by the provisions of the present Convention;” and Article 4 of the Convention, establishing the nonretroactivity of the Convention by providing that it “applies only totreaties which are concluded by States, after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States,” stipulates that this nonretroactivity is “ [w]ithout prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention.”

Two recent cases in the International Court of Justice have given new prominence to the role of interim measures of protection in international controversies. The circumstances of both the Icelandic fisheries litigation and the Australian and New Zealand application to prevent the holding of French nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean were such as to promise an enhanced role for interim measures in interstate conflicts. First, the jealousy with which states guard their natural resources and the continuing competition for those resources, especially in the high seas, have occasioned disputes in which a potential conflict management role for interim measures has been foreshadowed. The classic award of interim measures of protection, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case (Interim Measures o f Protection) (United Kingdom v. Iran) 1 was made in this context, as was the order in Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v.Iceland), Interim Protection.2 Secondly, in both cases, the indication of interim measures was disregarded. The effective role of interim measures is thus related to the general problem of improving the acceptability of the Court to states. Interim measures of protection, as an adjunct of the ,judicial process, reflect the perennial judicial concern for effective decisionmaking.The present debate on the role of the International Court of Justice has, to a large extent, concentrated on the lack of confidence shown by states in the Court. The length of time which elapses before final judgment has constituted a serious objection to the proceedings of the Court. Interim measures may have a role to play in ameliorating this situation3 for the duration of proceedings is of less concern when the rights of the parties receive interim protection. Thirdly, interim measures, may prove a unique means of preventing abuses of the human environment at the international level. The current emphasis on problems of the environment, especially pollution in international areas such as the high seas and pollution transcending state borders, has given rise to a growing demand that environmental abuses be nipped in the bud. States are unlikely to be satisfied with final judgments after irreparable damage to the environment has been caused. Increasing awareness of the global dimensions of these problems, the greater consciousness of the interdependence of states and of the inevitable impact of natural activities upon the environments of other states, should lead to a strengthening of the preventive role of the international judicial process. In this area, the institution of interim measures of protection, such as the injunction, has a potential role of great significance.

Time is a fundamental component of all social organization. Any component may be manipulated to achieve preferred outcomes, but time is particularly malleable. The concept of linear time, which allows complex sequential and conditional planning and deferred allocation of resources, is a critical part of Western political theory, for it facilitatesthe extension of present control far into the future. A peculiar genius of the law has been the elaboration of this linearism and the manipulation and supervision of different phases of future activity. Manipulation of time ia mundane legal activities has a utility per se in that it permits order and eflBciency in the complex, adversarial, but necessarily collaborative operations of groups and individuals. It is also a prerequisite to the realization of many other procedural privileges; without “enough” time, the privileges may be meaningless and even tavinting.

The questions which will be examined in this paper relate to the provisions of Articles 11 to 15, contained in Part II, Section I ( “Conclusion of Treaties” ) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. These articles deal with “the means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty” (as enumerated in Art. 11): signature (Art. 12), exchange of instruments constituting a treaty (Art. 13), ratification, acceptance, or approval (Art. 14) and accession (Art. 15).

At its Twenty-Fifth Session the International Law Commission determined to allot some of its limited time to each of the active subjects on its agenda. The decision was the child of necessity. The Draft Articles on the Representation of States in Their Relations with International Organizations had taken up most of the Commissions sessions in 1969, 1970, and 1971, and the Twenty-Fourth Session in 1972 had, under forced draft, produced the draft articles on the Succession of States to Treaties and on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Diplomatic Agents and Other Internationally Protected Persons. The inevitable byproduct was a mounting pressure, both within the Commission and from the General Assembly, for intensive examination of the draft articles and commentaries on State Responsibility, Succession of States in Matters Other Than Treaties, the Most-Favored-Nation Clause, and the Report on Treaties Concluded Between States and International Organizations.