About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


74 Am. J. Int'l L. 655 (1980)
Correspondence

handle is hein.journals/ajil74 and id is 661 raw text is: NOTES AND COMMENTS it is to be feared that the determination of jurisdictional issues is likely to be made on a case-by-case basis. The delineation of judicial trends may therefore be difficult for quite some time to come, unless, of course, the volume of Iranian litigation is such that it speeds up the analytic and comparative process of judicial decisions. Until then, many uncer- tainties will remain unresolved. This last remark applies to all types of situations, whether contractual or noncontractual, in which courts in the United States may assert jurisdic- tion over foreign states. In the contractual field, however, much will depend upon whether or not the parties had provided prior to the Act, or have since it took effect, for waivers of immunity coupled with (1) a clear definition of the commercial nature of the relationship; and (2) submission to the jurisdiction of a judicial or arbitral forum in the United States. Only in the affirmative can the parties have the reasonable assurance that plan- ning ahead of litigation, in sovereign immunity as in other fields, may have its own rewards. GEORGES R. DELAUME* CORRESPONDENCE To THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF: June 20, 1980 Professor Falk's editorial comment &n the Iran hostage crisis, which appeared in the April issue of the Journal, is puzzling. No doubt Professor Falk is well intentioned and morally upright, blut he has written a moralistic tract, lacking precision of language, logic, rigorous analysis, or any other characteristic that might qualify it to appear in a legal journal. What are crimes of state, tyrants, a framework of minimum moral- ity? Do these words have internationally recognized meaning? Do they evoke the same reaction in Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, Pretoria, and Princeton? I submit that they do not, and that the use of such vocabulary in the context of a professional critique of international law is nonsense. The basic weakness of international law is the lack of an underlying consensus. Without such a consensus there can be no enforceable law, no matter how many citizens form voluntary organizations to regulate the behavior of governments. It is precisely for this reason that there is so little effective substantive international law. On the other hand, there is a worldwide consensus to the effect that nations must have the means to communicate with each other, and that the procedures necessary to effect such communications must be safeguarded. Consequently, international law governing diplomatic im- munity, which is procedural in essence, is on much firmer footing than international law attempting to deal with ill-understood substantive issues. * Legal Policy Adviser, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; Pro- fessorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the IBRD. 19801