The General Assembly Resolution of December 17, 1970,1 has been widely acclaimed for its affirmation of the principles that

The decision of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases is surely one of the most interesting as well as debatable decisions in the history of the Court. It deals with certain aspects of one of the most important new developments of international law, the doctrine of the Continental Shelf. It also touches on some basic problems of the sources of international law. Among the matters dealt with, in greater or lesser detail, by the Court are the formation of custom in contemporary conditions, the effect of custom upon treaty and, in turn, the possible translation of principles formulated in a multilateral treaty, into universal custom. Above all, the Court was compelled to formulate certain principles of general equity as applicable to the delimitation of the continental shelves between three of the coastal states of the North Sea. It is this attempt of the Court to formulate the general principles of equity applicable to a fair allocation of the resources of the Continental Shelf between neighbors with which the present article will be mainly concerned.

Following its political break with Stalin's Russia, Yugoslavia has, since the early 1950s, increasingly turned away from the centralized socialist planning that characterizes the Soviet economic system. The main impulse for the gradual elaboration of a distinctive national system came from two directions. First, the Yugoslav conception of federalism was based on the association of six regions (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro) with very distinct national, historical, and social traditions and in different stages of economic development. This meant balancing central economic direction with concern for regional needs and interests. Second, the break with Stalinist Russia in 1948 no doubt stimulated a desire to develop, together with political and ideological independence, a distinctive national economic philosophy of communism in contrast to the overcentralized planning bureaucracy of the Soviet Union.

If the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations, designated as “International Co-operation Year,” had fallen in 1964 rather than 1965, a general assessment of the evolution of international law and organization since the end of World War II would have justified a measure of cautious confidence. Mankind was still very far from having organized itself against the danger of aggression. The danger of the proliferation of nuclear arms remained without effective control, apart from a partial nuclear test ban to which both the United States and the Soviet Union were parties. The world’s largest state, Communist China, remained outside the United Nations and without diplomatic relations with the United States and a large number of other states. The United Nations remained without effective control in conflicts between major Powers. The special agencies of the United Nations and other international welfare organizations still lacked, with few exceptions, the legal and executive power to cope with the many urgent problems of mankind. In the two most vital and dangerous areas: the conservation of resources, and the stemming of the explosive growth in the world's population, international organization was still embryonic or altogether lacking. But these grave drawbacks and deficiencies.

As public international law expands into new domains formerly excluded from its province, it will, for its “formal” sources, have to depend more and more on treaties as the nearest substitute for international legislation.

The development, in size as well as importance, of the international civil service is a relatively recent phenomenon in the international scene. One of its consequences is an increase in die number of problems that may and do arise between an international organization and the members of its staff. Such problems exist in all civil services, national as well as international; they arise in relation to the legal position of the service officials, to their dismissals and promotions (or lack of them), to disciplinary measures against any of them, to their salaries, leaves of absence and other such administrative “details”. On all such questions, the views on which the organization, as represented by its higher administrative officers, bases its actions, may differ from the views of the officials concerned. The facts in each case may be in dispute, or the meaning of the terms and provisions of the contracts of employment and the regulations of the service, may be understood in different ways by die parties concerned.