For almost a decade and one-half the Chinese participation question has challenged the United Nations. In its coming session the General Assembly will doubtlessly once again grapple with the question, but past debates do not promise rational solution. In brief summary, two claimants seek, or are proffered by others, to participate as the “State of China” in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Specialized Agencies. The Government of the Republic of China (Nationalist China) has held the seat since the founding of the United Nations. The People’s Republic of China (Communist China), however, commands resources of considerable magnitude, and events of recent years have enhanced its claim to participation.

To state the province and function of law in the control of war requires an understanding, in the broadest possible terms, of the nature of interstate conflict in the twentieth century. When such an understanding is reached, it will be seen that the traditional methodology of international law is inadequate for handling war-peace issues. While international lawyers should be faithful to the legal tradition of fact inquiry and judgment on the basis of legal norms, they should enlarge their perspective of international conflict and restructure their approach to the problem of war. The elaboration of this thesis is the subject of this note.

The conclusion on July 7, 1965, of an Agreement between the independent sovereign states of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in relation to the so-called Neutral Zone, of which exchange of instruments of ratification was effected on July 25 of this year, is a striking illustration of the ability of the Arab States to settle by free decision, unclouded by external influence, a unique and puzzling problem involving interests of great importance. It is an encouraging expression of the policy of common sense and good neighborliness, and raises interesting questions of international and domestic law.

The Viet-Nam hostilities arose and have escalated because of the radically different perceptions of the situation by the principal parties. A settlement might be possible if each side understood the image perceived by the other. An analysis of the interpretation of the situation which would result from an impartial application of international law, presumably reflecting the consensus of world opinion, might also be helpful.