It may be useful to ask at the outset what meaning is intended to convey by the words “universal international law.” It is a relatively new phrase which has come into vogue in the last few years, probably as a result of more intensely perceived ideological division in the world, the insistence on a common set of values as a precondition for a viable legal order, and, more recently, the challenge to the traditional body of doctrine and precept emanating from new States in Asia and Africa. It may be a matter of judgement whether the various controversies are of greater importance to scholars or to state practice. To be sure, the world is ideologically divided; the existence of common values among the different States and cultures is a matter of doubt, and jurists in various countries are preoccupied with the attitude, or more concisely, attitudes of new States toward international law. The actual impact of these factors on international law is not so easily perceived. Surely, international law is evolving, as it has in the past, in response to new needs, to technological developments, to the family of nations. No one in his right mind would want to have it otherwise. But clearly the forward movement of the law has not been the same in all its branches.