Wer heutzutage eine auf nationaler wie auf internationaler Ebene zutreffende Charakteristik seiner Zeit zu geben versucht, darf an zwei Tatsachen nicht vorübergehen. Die erste ist die Durchbrechung aller Grenzen, die zweite das Fehlen aller Diskretion. Beide Tatsachen sind verschieden, wie eng sie auch mit einander verbunden sein mögen. Unterscheiden soll man sie, weil derjenige, der eine Grenze durchbricht, das jenseits der Grenze Angetroffene nicht notwendigerweise der Öffentlichkeit preiszugeben braucht. Veröffentlichung ist jedoch eine so natürliche Folge, ja vielleicht eben das erhoffte Ziel des Durchbrechens, dass eine enge Beziehung zwischen den beiden Fakten einfach nicht zu leugnen ist.

In a sense, this paper is not more than a reminder—result of a respect readily paid by any student of International Law to a group of great scholars—the purpose of which it is to find out what a doctrine of Pure Law had, and might also in future, contribute to the maintenance of law in international relations. Put in a nutshell, the achievement of this School was to re-emphasize—twice, during the post-war periods of great and critical importance for the authority of law—the standing of the legal discipline as an independent factor of international order. Essentialia and accidentalia being intertwined, much of its development is due to the fact that the School was repeatedly “called to order” by its founder, Hans Kelsen, who, through a specific historic concatenation of circumstances, has since his expatriation from Austria remained a researcher with no other but scholarly responsibilities; he spoke on behalf of his philosophical cognizance only and exclusively, and where authority is being appreciated by virtue of its freedom from subservience to any specific interest, this School shall enjoy the respect due to its founder and long-time genius rector.

There is increasing disquietude, both among authors and practising lawyers, as regards the application of private international law on the basis of Von Savigny's doctrine, i.e. the principle that international legal relations are subject to the law of the country where such a relation has its “natural seat”: a study has therefore been undertaken as to the merits and practical applicability of this doctrine.

Such a study must start from a consideration of factual relationships and the actual interests stemming from such relationships. Where man admits to the existence of ethical norms for his behaviour, he necessarily finds himself confronted with obligations derived from these norms, but he also derives therefrom positive rights exercisable against his fellows; his inborn sense of justice is his criterion in determining where such rights lie. If his claims to such rights are indeed to be admitted, their validity must be tested against the legal rules which regulate mutual relations within a defined community; in the case of international relationships the question arises as to the criteria to be used in identifying the law to be applied, i.e. in determining within which complex of contacts the specific relation concerned can be said to lie, and hence where its “centre of gravity” or its “natural seat” is to be found.

The Security Council each year, under the specific provisions of Article 15(1) and 24 (3) submits a report on its work to the General Assembly. Under the provisions of Article 15 (2) the Assembly also receives the reports of the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council. Each year the reports of the three Councils are included in the Agenda of the current Assembly session.