However deep and acrimonious are most contemporary political controversies, the merits of the federal system of government are recognized by adherents of widely different political doctrines and practices. In the most different conditions federalism has established itself as a useful principle for welding together into one political body groups and regions of great diversity. Neither geography nor linguistic, racial or religious differences have proved insurmountable obstacles to political unity. The federal system of government, in dividing powers between one central government and a number of local governments, allows for that diversity in unity which is so attractive a goal for human activities.

It can be argued that with regard to the paramount problem of the twentieth century, the establishment of effective international institutions for the achievement of peace and justice, the development of perhaps the most far-reaching significance has occurred in the judicial field.

Recent press and Congressional discussion regarding the question of French taxation of property in France owned by the United States Government and used for mutual defense purposes suggests the desirability of considering whether international law forbids a state to impose taxes on public property owned by another state.

The national status of an individual is a matter of importance at all times, and is becoming increasingly so. It assumes special significance during hostilities between states. An extreme case is that of the dual national of two states that are at war with each other.

The purpose of this note is to survey the proceedings of the Security Council in regard to the Anglo-Iranian dispute brought before it, with particular reference to the question of domestic jurisdiction. For this purpose, only a brief account is given of the events which led to the submission of the dispute to the Council, as it is not intended to study the merits of the dispute.