[Subsequently set out in detail]
620 An example of a fundamental change would be the case where a party to a military and political alliance, involving exchange of military and intelligence information, has a change of government incompatible with the basis of alliance. The majority of modern writers accept the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus [...] The doctrine involves the implication of a term that the obligations of an agreement would end if there has been a change of circumstances. As in municipal systems, so in international law it is recognized that changes frustrating the object of an agreement and apart from actual impossibility may justify its termination. Some jurists dislike the doctrine, regarding it as a primary source of insecurity of obligations, more especially in the absence of a system of compulsory jurisdiction.[Set out in detail.]
70The formula appears in a Note from the US Secretary of State, Cordell Hulk to the Mexican Government dated 21 July 1938: Hackworth, iii. 655. The formula also appears in various modern commercial treaties: e.g. the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty of 1963, Art. 14; see Ahnond, 13 ICLQ (1964), 925 at 949. See also Whiteman, viii. 1085-9. It is also commonly stipulated that the taking should be 'in the public interest', but see infra, p. 545. On the criteria of adequacy, effectiveness, and promptness, see García Amador, Yrbk. ILC (1959), ii. 16-24; White, Nationalisation, pp. 235-43; Domke, 55 AJ (1967), 603-10; Sohn and Baxter, ibid. 553 (Art. 10/4), 559-60; ICJ Pleadings, Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (United Kingdom v. Iran), 100 ff.; Jiménez de Aréchaga, Yrbk. ILC (1963), ii. 237-44; Cole, 41 BY (1965-6), 374-9; Whiteman, viii. 1143-85; Metzger, 50 Virginia LR (1964), 603-7.