Modern Introduction To International Law

AKEHURST’S MODERN
INTRODUCTION TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW
‘Professor Malanczuk has written a new edition of Michael Akehurst’s

textbook which maintains its high traditions of clarity, precision and
coherence. The new edition, more detailed and more widely referenced,
will appeal to a wider audience of students than its predecessor, while
still satisfying the needs of those seeking an accessible introduction to
International Law, whether lawyers or not.’
Colin Warbrick, University of Durham
First published in 1970, A Modern Introduction to International Law

rapidly established itself as the most widely used and successful textbook
in its field. It covers a variety of topics from diplomatic immunity to
human rights and from recognition of governments to war crimes. This
new edition is now completely revised and updated to take account of
many new developments and includes additional chapters on human
rights, state responsibility, the environment and the economy.
Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law is ideal for

students concerned with the relationship between international politics
and international law and provides clear and authoritative guidance
through a complex and ever changing field of study.
Peter Malanczuk is Professor of International Law at the Law Faculty

of Erasmus University Rotterdam.
AKEHURST’S MODERN
INTRODUCTION TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Seventh revised edition
Peter Malanczuk
Assessor iur., Dr. iur.,
Professor of International Law, Law Faculty, Erasmus University
Rotterdam,
Former Legal Assistant to the President of the Iran-United States
Claims Tribunal,
Counsel, Lalive & Partners, Attorneys-at-Law, Geneva,
Member, Tianjin Board of Arbitration, China
London and New York

First published in 1970 by HarperCollins Academic
Second edition 1971
Third edition 1977
Fourth edition 1982
Fifth edition 1987
Sixth edition 1987
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

by Routledge
29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
Seventh edition 1997
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002.
© 1997 Routledge
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN 0-415-16553-9 (hbk)

ISBN 0-415-11120-X (pbk)
ISBN 0-203-42771-8 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-73595-1 (Glassbook Format)
2 History and theory
The origin of international law is a matter of dispute among scholars.1 1 See W.G.Grewe, Epochen der
Some authors start by examining the relations and treaties between Völkerrechtsgeschichte, 1984, 19–25;
political entities from ancient times (3000 BC), including pre-classical A.Cassese, International Law in a
Divided World, 1986, 37–8; H.Steiger,
antiquity in the Near East, ancient Greece and Persia, and the Romano-
Völkerrecht, in O.Brunner/W.Conze/R.
Hellenistic period.2 The prevailing view in the study of international law
Koselleck (eds), Geschichtliche
is that it emerged in Europe in the period after the Peace of Westphalia Grundbegriffe, Vol. 7, 1992, 97–140. For
(1648), which concluded the Thirty Years War. a good collection of documents see
Again we find different opinions in the literature on the proper W.G.Grewe (ed.), Fontes Historiae Iuris
classification of the subsequent development. In his interesting book on the Gentium: Sources Relating to the
epochs of the history of international law, the German diplomat and historian History of International Law, Vol. I:1380
BC-1493 (1985), Vol. II:1493–1815
Grewe argues that there were three distinct systems of international law
(1988), Vol. III 1/2:1815–1945 (1992).
after the sixteenth century, each of which was characterized by the interests, See also A.Nussbaum, A Concise
ideologies and policies of the power that was predominant in the relevant History of the Law of Nations, 1962;
period: the international legal orders of the Spanish age (1494– 1648), the J.H.W.Verzijl, International Law in
French age (1648–1815) and of the English age (1815–1919)3 (which the Historical Perspective, 11 vols, 1968–
Scots and the Welsh, of course, in contrast to Grewe, would prefer to call 1991; P.S.Onuf/N.Onuf, Federal Union,
‘British’).4 The Encyclopedia of Public International Law, edited by Rudolf Modern World, The Law of Nations in an
Age of Revolutions, 1776–1814, 1993;
Bernhardt, basically differentiates between the periods from 1648 to 1815,
H.Legohérel, Histoire du droit
1815 to the First World War, the inter-war period, and developments since international public, 1996.
the Second World War.5 But it also has separate entries for regional 2 W.Preiser, History of the Law of
developments in Africa, the Far East, the Islamic world, Latin America, and Nations: Ancient Times to 1648, EPIL II
South and South-East Asia,6 to avoid the impression of a Eurocentric (1995), 716–49.
approach and to clarify that the development of international rules and 3 Grewe (1984), op. cit., 43. For an
principles was not a European matter only. With regard to Asia, the work excellent analysis of the strategic-
economic reasons for the changes in
of C.H.Alexandrowicz especially has brought many new insights which
the international system see P.Kennedy,
had been lost in the course of European expansion.7 As noted by R.P.Anand, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,
it is incorrect Economic Change and Military Conflict
from 1500 to 2000, 1987. See also C.J.
to assume that international law has developed only during the last Barlett, The Global Conflict. The
International Rivalry of the Great
four or five hundred years and only in Europe, or that Christian
Powers, 1880–1990, 2nd edn 1994.
civilization has enjoyed a monopoly in regard to prescription of rules 4 On the multinational nature of the
to govern inter-state conduct. As Majid Khadduri points out: ‘In each British unitary state and regionalist
civilization the population tended to develop within itself a community tendencies, see P.Malanczuk, Region
und unitarische Struktur in
of political entities—a family of nations—whose interrelationships
Großbritannien, 1984.
were regulated by a set of customary rules and practices, rather 5 History of the Law of Nations, EPIL II
than being a single nation governed by a single authority and a (1995): S.Verosta, 1648 to 1815, 749–
single system of law. Several families of nations existed or coexisted 67; H.-U.Scupin, 1815 to the First World
War, 767–93; W.G.Grewe, the First
in areas such as the ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, China,
World War to the Second World War,
Islam and Western Christendom, where at least one distinct 839–49; O.Kimminich, Since the
civilization had developed in each of them. Within each civilization Second World War, 849–61.
a body of principles and rules developed for regulating the conduct 6 History of the Law of Nations—
Regional Developments, EPIL II (1995):
of states with one another in peace and war’.8
T.O.Elias, Africa, 793–802; S.Miyazaki,
Far East, 802–9; A.S.El-Kosheri, Islam,
10 HISTORY AND THEORY
809–18; A.T.Y.Serra, Latin America,

818–24; N.Singh, South and South-
The problem of periodization is well-known in historical studies in general.
East Asia, 824–39. To a large extent the classification of history into periods is arbitrary and
7 C.H.Alexandrowicz, An Introduction
to the History of the Law of Nations in
depends on the criteria applied. Therefore, not too much importance should
the East Indies (16th, 17th and 18th be attached to it. For the purposes of this introduction it suffices to broadly
centuries), 1967; Treaty and
Diplomatic Relations Between
distinguish between the ‘classical’ system of international law (1648–1918)
European and South Asian Powers in and the development of ‘modern’ or ‘new’ international law since the First
the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries, RdC 123 (1968– I), 121
World War. The classical system was based on the recognition of the modern
et seq. See also J.A.Thomas, History sovereign state as the only subject of international law. This system was
and International Law in Asia: A Time
for Review, in R.St.J.Macdonald (ed.),
composed of numerous sovereign states considered as legally equal and who
Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya, accepted the unlimited right to wage war to enforce claims and protect national
1994, 813–57.
8 R.P.Anand, The Influence of History
interests. In essence it reflected the interaction among European powers and
on the Literature of International Law, the imposition of their international legal order upon the rest of the world in
in R.St.J.Macdonald/D.M.Johnston
(eds), The Structure and Process of
the three centuries following the Peace of Westphalia. From 1919 onwards a
International Law, 1983, 342. fundamental transformation of the international system took place with the
9 See Chapter 22 below, 395–415,
423–30.
attempt to organize the international community and to ban the use of force.
10 See Grewe (1984), op. cit.; The development of modern international law can conveniently be described
Anand, op. cit., 344. On one aspect
see also T. Meron, The Authority to
in the stages from the First World War to the Second World War, including
Make Treaties in the Late Middle the split of the international community in the wake of the Russian Revolution
Ages, AJIL 89 (1995), 1–20.
11 See text below, 17–18.
and the creation of the League of Nations, from the establishment of the
United Nations to decolonization (1945–60), and from the further expansion
of the international community to the end of the Cold War marked by the
dissolution of the Soviet empire (1960–89). The attempt to find a ‘New World
Order’ after the end of the bipolar East-West conflict and the difficulties in
the current phase of the development of international law will be addressed
in the final chapter of this book.9
The formation of European international law
Even during the Middle Ages in Western Europe international law existed.10
But medieval Europe was not very suitable for the development of
international law, because it was not divided into states in the modern sense.
Nowadays we think of states as having undisputed political control over
their own territory, and as being independent of external political control.
Medieval kings were not in this position; internally, they shared power
with their barons, each of whom had a private army; externally, they
acknowledged some sort of allegiance to the Pope and to the Holy Roman
Emperor. When strong centralized states, such as England, Spain, France,
the Netherlands and Sweden began to emerge, claiming unrestricted
sovereignty and no longer submitting to a superior authority, new
international standards evolved, also in relation to non-European powers
like the Ottoman Empire, China and Japan. In the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, with the discovery of the sea routes to the Far East and the
rediscovery of America, the sea powers transcended the previous limits of
the political world of Europe. This was followed by the development of the
concept of the sovereign state, first in theory in the sixteenth century by
Bodin,11 then in reality in Spain and, in the transition to the seventeenth
century, also in France.
EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL LAW AFTER 1648 11
12 See A.-M.de Zayas, Westphalia,

Features of European international law in state Peace of (1648), EPIL 7 (1984), 536–9.
practice after 1648 13 Cassese, op. cit., 37.
14 See A.Vagts/D.Vagts, Balance of
Power, EPIL I (1992), 313–15.
In state practice, the year 1648 marking the Peace of Westphalia12 is 15 Cited by Verosta, 1648 to 1815, op.
considered as a watershed, at least in Europe where a new political order cit., at 751.
16 See Chapter 19 below, 326–40.
was created, to be replaced only after the defeat of Napoleon by the 17 F.Münch, Vienna Congress (1815),
Vienna Congress of 1815. Within Europe the Peace of Westphalia ended EPIL 7 (1984), 522–5.
the devastating religious wars between Catholic and Protestant countries
and led to the recognition of Protestant powers and of the fact that the
state is independent of the Church. Three hundred or so political entities,
constituting the remains of the Holy Roman Empire, received the right
to enter into alliances with foreign powers under certain restrictions.
While Germany was divided into a number of comparatively small states,
France, Sweden and the Netherlands were recognized as new big powers,
and Switzerland and the Netherlands were accorded the position of
neutral states. The Empire disintegrated and the decline of the power of
the Church accelerated. As the Italian scholar Cassese notes with regard
to the system set up by the Peace of Westphalia: ‘by the same token it
recorded the birth of an international system based on a plurality of
independent states, recognizing no superior authority over them.’13
The Peace of Westphalia envisaged a collective security system which
obliged parties to defend its provisions against all others. Disputes were to
be referred to a peaceful settlement or a legal adjudication. If no solution
was found on this basis within three years, all other parties were to come to
the assistance of the injured party and allowed to use force. This system was
never put into practice. Power politics and continuously shifting military
alliances among European states overruled it, reflecting the attempt to
maintain a balance of power14 which was the prevailing political principle
in their foreign policy. Friederich Gentz, the collaborator of Metternich,
was later (1806) to define the European balance of power accurately as ‘an
organization of separately existing states of which no single one has the
ability to impair the independence or the basic rights of the others without
meeting with effective resistance and thus having to risk danger for itself’.15
What became known as ‘European public law’ (ius publicum
europaeum; droit public de l’Europe) evolved from the increased diplomatic
and violent intercourse and ever-changing alliances among European
powers on the basis of this principle, which was to be only temporarily
abolished through the conquest of Europe by Napoleon. The French
Revolution of 1789, however, had profoundly challenged the basis of the
existing system by advocating the ideas of freedom and self-determination
of people16 which were meant to be implemented beyond the boundaries
of France, and denied the rights of monarchs to dispose of state territory
and population according to their own discretion.
With the restoration of the old order in Europe at the Vienna Congress
of 1815,17 the second attempt in history to create a collective security
system was somewhat more successful, of course, under its own terms
and historical conditions. The Treaties of Paris created the Holy Alliance
of Christian nations between the monarchies of Austria, Russia and Prussia,
and an anti-revolutionary military alliance between Austria, Prussia,
18 See S.Verosta, Aix-La-Chapelle,

Congress of (1818), EPIL I (1992),
Russia, and England, joined later also by France, to intervene against liberal
94– 5; Verosta, Holy Alliance, EPIL II and nationalist uprising threatening the established order.18
(1995), 861–3.
19 A.Randelzhofer, Great Powers,
The era of cooperation between the Great Powers19 in Europe came to
EPIL II (1995), 618–22. an end with the dispute over the Balkans and their diverging strategic interests
20 T.Schieder, Crimean War, EPIL I
(1992), 867–9.
with regard to the declining Turkish empire. The Crimean War,20 in which
21 Text in 114 CTS 409. See T. Russia was defeated by the alliance of France and Great Britain, supported
Schieder, Paris Peace Treaty
(1856), EPIL 7 (1984), 376–8.
by Piedmont-Sardinia and Turkey, ended with the Paris Peace Treaty of
22 F.Münch, Berlin Congress 1856.21 But the Berlin Congress of 187822 failed to solve the Balkan problems
(1878), EPIL I (1992), 387–9.
23 F.Münch, Balkan Wars (1912/
and the struggle of European powers over the distribution of spoils emerging
1913), EPIL I (1992), 319–21. in the Orient from the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire culminated in
24 On this period see S.Verosta,
Kollektivaktionen der Mächte des
the Balkan Wars of 1912/13,23 bringing the Concert of Europe to its end.24
Europäischen Konzerts (1886–
1914), 1988.
25 J.Fisch, Die europäische Colonization and the relation to non-European powers
Expansion und das Völkerrecht,
1984; F. Ermarcora, Colonies and
Colonial Régime, EPIL I (1992),
One important aspect of the nature of international law in the age of European
662–6. colonization of the world,25 was the relationship of European states, unified
by Christianity, to non-European powers. European expansion abroad in the
interest of trade and commerce was promoted in England, the Netherlands
and France by ruthless profit-making companies, such as the British East
India Company, enjoying privileges which permitted them to perform state
functions in overseas territories. On the inter-state level, at first Europeans
were prepared to admit that non-European states had at least limited rights
under the European system of international law. Non-European states were
also often willing to concede that European states had at least limited rights
under their various non-European systems of international law, and so legal
relations, at the beginning on equal footing, between European and non-
European states became possible. However, these relations did not constitute
a true universal legal system based on common values or institutions, and
states existed separately without any extensive cooperation.
The Europeans recognized the Mogul Empire in India, the Ottoman
Empire, Persia, China, Japan, Burma, Siam (renamed Thailand in 1939)
and Ethiopia as established political entities, but they were aware that these
states did not play a major role in global affairs. By the Paris Peace Treaty
of 1856 Turkey was even expressly admitted (as the first non-Christian
nation) to the Concert of Europe. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire,
for example, had found it difficult to accept the Christian nations it was
confronted with at its borders in Europe as equal and was insisting on its
superiority. Similarly, China, ‘the empire in the centre of the earth’, preferred
isolation to contact with foreigners, from whom nothing more than tribute
was expected to be due. When a British delegation from King George III
(1760–1821), backed by some handsome new technical gifts, requested in
1793 that China accept a British envoy, the Emperor responded:
As to your entreaty to send one of your nationals to be accredited

to my Celestial Court and to be in control of your country’s trade
with China, this request is contrary to all usage of my dynasty and
cannot possibly be entertained…Our ceremonies and code of laws
differ so completely from your own that, even if your Envoy were
able to acquire the rudiments of our civilization, you could not
26 Emperor Ch’ieng-lung, cited by
possibly transplant our manners and customs to your alien Verosta, 1648 to 1815, op. cit., at 761.
soil…Swaying the wide world, I have but one aim in view, namely, 27 See T.Pakenham, The Scramble for
Africa 1876–1912, 1992.
to maintain a perfect governance and to fulfill the duties of the 28 F.Münch, Berlin West Africa
state…I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have Conference (1884/1885), EPIL I (1992),
389–91.
no use for your country’s manufactures.26 29 A.D.Hughes, Hong Kong, EPIL II
(1995), 870–3. See also Harris CMIL,
235. On the agreement to return Hong
Japan, after the ascent to power of the Shoguns, ended the infiltration Kong to China in 1997 see Chapter 10
by Christian missionaries and also cut itself off from all alien contact, below, 158.
30 See Wang Tieya, International Law in
the only exception being Dutch merchants who were permitted to China: Historical and Contemporary
continue business at a trading post at Nagasaki. It took until the Perspectives, RdC 221 (1990–II), 193–
369; W.Morvay, Unequal Treaties, EPIL
nineteenth century for European powers to re-establish trade with China 7 (1984), 514–17. See also Chapters 9,
and Japan with the threat and use of force, invoking, inter alia, the 139–40 and 10, 158 below.
alleged legal principle of ‘freedom of trade’.
In sum, although legally all members of the international community
were equal, in fact, the international system was dominated by the great
powers of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the United States, Russia,
Austria, Prussia and the Netherlands. Following the industrial revolution
in Europe after the late eighteenth century, in the nineteenth century the
international community to a large extent had virtually become a
European one on the basis of either conquest or domination. By about
1880 Europeans had subdued most of the non-European states, which
was interpreted in Europe as conclusive proof of the inherent superiority
of the white man, and the international legal system became a white
man’s club, to which non-European states would be admitted only if
they produced evidence that they were ‘civilized’.
In the case of old powers, such as Turkey, Siam (Thailand), China and
Japan, Western states basically relied on the so-called capitulation system,
treaties which were designed to establish lasting privileges for European
trade and commerce in those states and which exempted Europeans from
local jurisdiction. In the case of communities without sufficient central
authority, the method was simply conquest and appropriation. Conquest
and appropriation became particularly apparent in the scramble for
Africa,27 the dividing up of the continent among European powers at the
Berlin West Africa Conference 1884/5, which managed to settle the issues
among colonial powers without provoking another European war.28
Only rarely were nations which had been selected for colonization
able to offer effective resistance, as in the case of Ethiopia in 1896
when Emperor Menelik’s forces humiliated the Italians in the battle
of Adwa. The fate of China offers an illuminating example. After the
Opium War of 1842, fought under the premise of securing the sale of
the drug in China, the Treaty of Nanking compelled China to
surrender the island of Hong Kong to Britain.29 It was followed by
other ‘unequal treaties’ imposing diplomatic relations and increasing
the number of available trading ports.30 The anti-foreign spirit in
China in response to Western intervention in the distracted Empire
resulted in the famous Boxer rebellion. The Boxers, known in China
as ‘Patriotic Harmonious Fists’, found official support for their ‘China
for the Chinese’ objective. But following attacks on Western legations
in Beijing and the murder of Europeans, military intervention led
31 Hamsworth, History of the World,

Vol. 2, 1908, 823.
by Admiral Sir Edward Seymour crushed the rebellion at Lang-Fang in
32 See P.Malanczuk, Monroe June 1900. The Peace Commission of the victors sentenced Princes Tuan
Doctrine, EPIL 7 (1984), 339–44.
33 See text below, 30.
and Fukuo to death, which sentence, because of their imperial rank, was
34 See Serra (1995), op. cit.; converted to penal servitude for life. Prince Chuang and the Presidents of
C.Gray, International Law 1908–
1983, Leg. Stud. 3 (1983), 267–82,
the Board of Censors and Board of Punishment were forced to commit
269 et seq.; J.A.Barberis, Les suicide; three other high officials were beheaded. In addition, a protocol,
Règles spécifiques du droit
international en Amérique Latine,
signed on 7 September 1901, fixed the indemnity to be paid by China at
RdC 235 (1992–IV), 81–227. 450,000,000 taels, on which 4 per cent interest was to be charged until the
capital was paid off at the end of 39 years.31
Japan was somewhat more fortunate because it had decided in the
nineteenth century to adapt its feudal system to the more advanced foreign
technology and organization of the West. This was a reaction to the opening
of the country by the cannons of the American Commodore Perry, the
subsequent conclusion of a trade and ‘friendship’ treaty in 1854, other
treaties with European powers putting their nationals under the jurisdiction
of their consuls, and the repeated bombardment of Japanese ports. The
adaptation was one of the reasons which later enabled Japan to defeat Russia
in the war of 1904/5, to occupy Korea and Manchuria, and gain recognition
as a new major power in the Peace of Portsmouth (USA) of 1905. The end
of white rule and the complex process of decolonization in Asia was then
brought forward by Japanese aggression and initial victories in the Second
World War, which helped to destroy the myth of the invincibility of the
European colonial masters.
The Western hemisphere

European states, however, were also confronted with new problems in the
wake of the American rebellion against Britain. The American Declaration
of Independence of 1776, invoking the principle of self-determination, had
led to the recognition after seven years of war of a new subject of
international law by the mother country, followed at the beginning of the
nineteenth century by the independence of Latin-American states from Spain
and Portugal. The dissociation from Europe was expressed in the doctrine
proclaimed by President Monroe in 1823 against European intervention in
the Western hemisphere.32 The Monroe doctrine, never accepted as a legal
one in Europe, however, was to become the basis for numerous interventions
by the United States in Latin America. Nevertheless, the United States and
Latin American countries remained within the system of European
international law and made significant contributions to its development.
While the practice of the United States, to take one important example,
furthered international arbitration to settle disputes,33 South American states
attempted to protect themselves against foreign intervention and European
dominance by formulating a new regional American international law.34
On the whole, the general American attitude towards international relations
was more idealistic and law-orientated than the traditional realistic and
power-motivated perspective of European states. But even the United States,
although it cherished freedom from colonial domination in its own history,
for example, was engaged in opening up China, and took the Philippines in
1898 after the war with Spain.
From what has been outlined above, it naturally follows that in the 35 See Chapter 19 below, 306–9.
36 W.Benedek, Drago-Porter Convention
‘classical period’ the use of force short of war was also covered by (1907), EPIL I (1992), 1102–3.
international law.35 A famous example for the latter was the failure of 37 See Chapter 17 below, 260–1.
38 On the role of doctrine as a
the Argentinian Foreign Minister Luis Drago at the beginning of the subsidiary source of contemporary
twentieth century to change the practice of powerful European states international law see Chapter 3 below,
using armed force to achieve payment from other states for damage caused 51–2.
39 See Grewe (1984), op. cit., 300 et
to them or their nationals (‘gun-boat diplomacy’).36 Venezuela demanded seq., 471 et seq., 647 et seq.
that the question of debts owed to Britain, Germany and Italy for civil- 40 See J.P.Egido, Natural Law, EPIL 7
war damage, the seizure of ships by the Venezuelan government, and (1984), 344–9; R.Ago, Positivism, ibid.,
385–93; H.J.Steiner, International Law:
stemming from loans granted to Venezuela for railways, be settled by a Doctrine and Schools of Thought in the
Venezuelan commission. The commission refused to accept full Twentieth Century, EPIL II (1995), 1216–
27; see also A.Verdross/H.F. Koeck,
compensation of the European claims and, after an ultimatum, in 1902 Natural Law: The Tradition of Universal
the European claimant states sank three Venezuelan ships, bombarded Reason and Authority, in Macdonald/
Puerto Cabello and imposed a naval blockade upon Venezuela. The Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 17–50;
M.Bos, Will and Order in the Nation-
reaction of the United States to a note of protest sent by Drago with State System: Observations on
reference to the Monroe doctrine was negative. In effect, the United Positivism and International Law, ibid.,
States pointed out that foreign intervention would not occur if Latin- 51–78.
41 See T.M.C.Asser Instituut (ed.),
American countries respected their international obligations concerning International Law and the Grotian
the protection of foreign property.37 Heritage, 1983; P.Haggenmacher,
Grotius et la doctrine de la guerre juste,
1983; A.Dufour/P.Haggenmacher/J.
Toman (eds), Grotius et l’ordre juridique
Theory: naturalists and positivists international, 1985; H.Bull/B. Kingsbury/
A.Roberts (eds), Hugo Grotius and
Having outlined some important aspects of state practice, it is now International Relations, 1990;
C.G.Roelofsen, Grotius and the ‘Grotian
appropriate to turn to doctrine, which has always had much less influence Heritage’ in International Law and
on the actual development of international law than many writers have International Relations, The
been willing to admit.38 The notion of European international law was Quartercentenary and its Aftermath (ca.
1980–1990), Grotiana 11 (1990), 6–28;
prepared by academic writers who during the formative period of O.Yasuaki (ed.), A Normative Approach
international law provided legal concepts and systematic arguments to War. Peace, War, and Justice in
Hugo Grotius, 1993; P.Borschenberg,
justifying the interests of the emerging powers, especially with regard to Hugo Grotius ‘Commentarius in theses
the ambitions of their own respective countries, as may be noted in the XI’: An Early Treatise on Sovereignty,
the Just War, and the Legitimacy of the
development of the law of the sea.39 Since they have, to some extent, left Dutch Revolt, 1994.
a mark on the modern law, it is necessary to say something about them, 42 A.Truyol Serra et al. (eds), Actualité
de la pensée juridique de Francisco de
and in particular to describe the two main schools of thought: naturalists Vitoria, 1988.
and positivists, lines of thinking about international law which still belong 43 See T.Meron, Common Rights of
Mankind in Gentili, Grotius and Suarez,
to the mainstream of Western conceptions of international law today, AJIL 85 (1991), 110–17.
although they have faced challenge.40 44 M.v.Gelderen, The Challenge of
The leading naturalist writer was the Dutchman Hugo Grotius (1583– Colonialism: Grotius and Vitoria on
Natural Law and International Relations,
1645), who is often regarded as the founder of modern international law;41 Grotiana 14/5 (1993/4), 3–37.
other important naturalist writers were the Spaniards Vitoria (1486–
1546)42 and Suarez (1548–1617), Gentili, an Italian Protestant who fled
to England (1552–1608),43 and the Englishman Zouche (1590–1661).
Although disagreeing about many things, all these writers agreed that the
basic principles of all law (national as well as international) were derived,
not from any deliberate human choice or decision, but from principles of
justice which had a universal and eternal validity and which could be
discovered by pure reason; law was to be found, not made.
These basic principles of law were called natural law. But Vitoria’s
early attempt to establish ius naturae as the universal law of humanity
to include the so-called ‘Indian’ nations in the Americas in its sphere of
legal protection remained a vain theoretical suggestion.44 Natural law
was originally regarded as having a divine origin, but Grotius wrote that
45 M.W.Janis (ed.), The Influence of

Religion on the Development of
natural law would still have existed even if God had not existed; instead,
International Law, 1991. Grotius considered that the existence of natural law was the automatic
consequence of the fact that men lived together in society and were capable
of understanding that certain rules were necessary for the preservation of
society. According to this line of argument, the prohibition of murder, for
instance, was a rule of natural law, independently of any legislation
forbidding murder, because every intelligent man would realize that such a
rule was just and necessary for the preservation of human society.
The theory of natural law has a long tradition, going back to Roman
times, and is still the official philosophy of law accepted by the Roman Catholic
Church. But nowadays it is not accepted by many people outside the Roman
Catholic Church.45 Having religious overtones and being incapable of
verification, the theory is suspect in a scientific and secular age. The essence
of the theory was that law was derived from justice, and, although lawyers
and judges often appeal to justice in order to fill gaps or to resolve uncertainties
in the law, the theory of natural law must logically lead to a much more
radical conclusion, namely that an unjust rule is not law at all and can be
disregarded by the judge; but this is a conclusion which no modern legal
system would accept. Even the supporters of the theory have been unable to
state principles of natural law with any precision; for instance, ‘Thou shalt
not kill’ may be accepted as a universally valid rule, necessary for the
maintenance of human society, but writers on natural law do not agree about
the number of exceptions to the rule which ought to be recognized.
However, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the theory was
universally accepted, and it performed a very useful function by encouraging
respect for justice at a time when the collapse of the feudal system and the
division of Europe between Catholics and Protestants might otherwise have
led to complete anarchy. It is hard to think of any other foundations on
which a system of international law could have been built at that time.
Even the vagueness of the natural law theory, which is nowadays such a
defect, was less apparent in the time of Grotius, who illustrated his arguments
with biblical quotations, references to Greek and Roman history and—
above all—analogies drawn from Roman private law, which at that time
was admired as a fairly accurate reflection of natural law and was therefore
copied by many European countries.
After Grotius’ death the intellectual climate became more sceptical, and
international law would have lost respect if it had remained based on the
theory of natural law. People were beginning to argue by 1700 that law was
largely positive, that is, man-made; consequently, law and justice were not
the same thing, and laws might vary from time to time and from place to
place, according to the whim of the legislator. Applied to international law,
positivism (as this new theory was called) regarded the actual behaviour of
states as the basis of international law. The first great positivist writer on
international law was another Dutchman, Cornelis van Bynkershoek (1673–
1743), who was to some extent ahead of his time; positivism had its roots
in the eighteenth century but was not fully accepted until the nineteenth
century. Unfortunately, apart from collecting the texts of treaties, little
attempt was made to study the practice of states scientifically until the
twentieth century.
46 N.G.Onuf, Civitas Maxima: Wolff,

An attempt to combine naturalism and positivism was made by the Vattel and the Fate of Republicanism,
Swiss writer Emerich von Vattel (1714–67).46 He emphasized the inherent AJIL 88 (1994), 280–303.
47 See G.H.Sabine/T.L.Thorson, A
rights which states derived from natural law, but said that they were History of Political Theory, 4th edn 1973,
accountable only to their own consciences for the observance of the Part III: The Theory of the National
State.
duties imposed by natural law, unless they had expressly agreed to treat
those duties as part of positive law. Vattel exercised a strong and
pernicious influence on many writers and states during the eighteenth,
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; even today his influence is still
sometimes felt. An intellectual climate which encourages states to assert
their rights and to ignore their duties is a sure recipe for disorder.
The theory of sovereignty

One word which recurs frequently in the writings of Vattel’s followers is
‘sovereignty’, and it is doubtful whether any single word has ever caused
so much intellectual confusion and international lawlessness.
The theory of sovereignty began as an attempt to analyse the internal
structure of a state. Political philosophers taught that there must be,
within each state, some entity which possessed supreme legislative power
and/or supreme political power. The theory dates back to the sixteenth
century and political scientists usually refer to the writings of Machiavelli
(1469– 1527), Jean Bodin (1530–1596) and Thomas Hobbes (1588–
1679).47 But its best-known exponent, as far as lawyers are concerned,
was John Austin (1790–1859), who defined law as the general commands
of a sovereign, supported by the threat of sanctions. Since international
law did not fit his theory, he said that international law was not law. In
fact, it is hard to find any legal system which does fit his theory. In
federal states like the United States, legislative power is divided by the
constitution between the federation and the member states, neither of
which has supreme legislative power. Even in England, where the Queen
in Parliament has supreme legislative power, legislation is not the only
source of law, nor the oldest source of law.
It was easy to argue, as a corollary to this theory, that the sovereign,
possessing supreme power, was not himself bound by the laws which he
made. Then, by a shift of meaning, the word came to be used to describe,
not only the relationship of a superior to his inferiors within a state
(internal sovereignty), but also the relationship of the ruler or of the
state itself towards other states (external sovereignty). But the word still
carried its emotive overtones of unlimited power above the law, and this
gave a totally misleading picture of international relations. The fact that
a ruler can do what he likes to his own subjects does not mean that he
can do what he likes—either as a matter of law or as a matter of power
politics—to other states.
When international lawyers say that a state is sovereign, all that they
really mean is that it is independent, that is, that it is not a dependency of
some other state. They do not mean that it is in any way above the law. It
would be far better if the word ‘sovereignty’ were replaced by the word
‘independence’. In so far as ‘sovereignty’ means anything in addition to
48 Wimbledon case, PCIJ, series A,

no. 1, 25. In this case Germany had
‘independence’, it is not a legal term with any fixed meaning, but a wholly
refused the British steamship emotive term. Everyone knows that states are powerful, but the emphasis
Wimbledon, chartered by a French
company, access to the Kiel Canal
on sovereignty exaggerates their power and encourages them to abuse it;
on the grounds that the vessel had above all, it preserves the superstition that there is something in international
on board a cargo of munitions and
artillery stores consigned to the
cooperation as such which comes near to violating the intrinsic nature of a
Polish naval base at Danzig. The ‘sovereign’ state.
refusal was based upon German
Neutrality Orders issued in 1920 in
At the end of the nineteenth century, many international lawyers,
connection with the war between particularly in Germany, developed the doctrine of sovereignty to the point
Russia and Poland. The court held
that Germany had acted in violation
where it threatened to destroy international law altogether. Since 1914 there
of Art. 380 of the Versailles Peace has been a reaction. International lawyers in the Western world have rejected
Treaty; see I.v.Münch, The
Wimbledon, EPIL 2 (1981), 293–6.
the old dogmas about sovereignty and the inherent rights of states; indeed,
49 See Chapter 5 below, 80. scientific examinations of the practice of states, which were carried out for
50 See L.Wildhaber, Sovereignty and
International Law, in Macdonald/
the first time in the twentieth century, have shown that those dogmas were
Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 425– never taken half as seriously by states as they were by theorists. In 1923, in
52; F.H.Hinsley, Sovereignty, 2nd edn
1986; A.James, Sovereign
the Wimbledon case, the Permanent Court of International Justice said:
Statehood, 1986; H.Steinberger, ‘The Court declines to see, in the conclusion of any treaty by which a state
Sovereignty, EPIL 10 (1987), 397–
418; I.D.DeLupis, International Law
undertakes to perform or refrain from performing a particular act, an
and the Independent State, 1988; abandonment of its sovereignty…[T]he right of entering into international
R.H.Jackson, Quasi-States:
Sovereignty, International Relations
engagements is an attribute of state sovereignty.’48
and the Third World, 1990; J. Of course, one can imagine treaties containing such far-reaching
Bartelson, A Genealogy of
Sovereignty, 1993; G.Gottlieb, Nation
obligations as depriving a state of its independence—for instance, a treaty
Against State. A New Approach to whereby one state becomes a protectorate of another state.49 But there is no
Ethnic Conflicts and the Decline of
State Sovereignty, 1993;
fixed dividing line between independence and loss of independence; it is a
O.Schachter, Sovereignty—Then matter of degree and opinion; even ‘independence’ shares some of the emotive
and Now, in Macdonald (ed.), 1994,
op. cit., 671–88; L.Henkin, The
qualities of the word ‘sovereignty’. For instance, the idea of joining a
Mythology of Sovereignty, ibid., 351– supranational organization like the European Union, which would have
8; N.Schrijver, The Dynamics of
Sovereignty in a Changing World, in
been regarded as an intolerable restriction upon independence a century
K.Ginther/E. Denters/P.J.I.M.de ago, is nowadays discussed in the more realistic terms of economic
Waart (eds), Sustainable
Development and Good
advantages and disadvantages. While in the West the doctrine of sovereignty
Governance, 1995, 80–9; has been losing much ground in view of increasing international
M.R.Fowler/ J.M.Bunck, Law, Power
and the Sovereign State. The
interdependence, developing countries still value it highly as a ‘cornerstone
Evolution and the Application of the of international relations’ to protect their recently gained political
Concept of Sovereignty, 1995;
A.Chayes/A.H. Chayes, The New
independence.50
Sovereignty. Compliance with
International Regulatory Agreements,
1995; K.M. Meesen, Sovereignty, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1193–201; Legal results of the period up to the First World War
A.Bleckmann, Article 2(1), in Simma
CUNAC, 77–87. See also the
literature in Chapter 1 above, 3 and What were the main legal results of the development of this ‘classical’ and
Chapter 5 below, 13–80.
basically European international law, which seemed to view states as living
52 See Chapter 8 below, 118–26. more in a situation of anarchy than of law and order? In the first place, a
number of basic rules and principles of international law emerged in this
55 See Chapter 17 below, 256–69. period, such as the principle of territorial sovereignty securing exclusive
control and jurisdiction of states over their territory, the freedom of the
high seas,51 the law on state immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign
courts,52 the law on diplomatic and consular relations,53 the principle of
pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be kept) and the law of treaties,54 rules
on the diplomatic protection of foreigners and their property,55 and on
neutrality.56
THE PERIOD UP TO THE FIRST WORLD WAR 19
The unlimited right to use force 58 For the following see P.Malanczuk,
Humanitarian Intervention and the
A central feature of classical international law was that it did not place Legitimacy of the Use of Force, 1993,
any restriction on the right of states to use force and to go to war which 7–11 with references.
59 II Principe, written in 1513, published
was considered to be an inherent attribute of the sovereignty and equality in 1531. Less attention has been paid to
of states. Effective annexation of conquered foreign territory was a valid Machiavelli’s other important work, the
legal title to acquire sovereignty over it.57 There is also no doubt that the Discorsi.
60 De Rei publica (1576), published in
concepts of international law prevailing at this time served to facilitate French in 1579.
the process of colonization. Sovereignty could be acquired over terrae 61 Grewe (1984), op. cit., 211–16.
nullius, territory allegedly belonging to nobody, a notion applied to areas 62 F.de Martens, Traité de droit
international, 1883, 398.
throughout the world lacking a strong central power able to resist
conquest. If resistance happened to occur, either treaties with local rulers
were available as legal instruments, or war could be used.
The unlimited right to use force was also reflected in the doctrine of
intervention.58 In the sixteenth century, when the fundament of the theory
of the modern sovereign state was laid by Machiavelli59 and Bodin,60 the
specific historical doctrine of intervention, also advocated by such authors
as Vitoria, Gentili, and Grotius, was primarily motivated by religious
considerations.61 These were superseded after the Thirty Years War
(1618–48) by the practice of more general political intervention. Grewe
also refers to comments by Grotius, not usually cited, which seem to
indicate that the great writer, in accordance with the spirit of his age,
when addressing humanitarian intervention, in reality meant the right
of religious intervention founded upon natural law to protect fellow
Christians. It is notable that even much later there were still writers such
as de Martens who in 1883 justified intervention by the ‘civilized powers’,
but only in relation to ‘non civilized nations’, when ‘the Christian
population of those countries is exposed to persecutions or massacres’
by ‘common religious interests and humanitarian considerations’.62
In the nineteenth century, the principle of non-intervention, as
formulated earlier by Wolff and Vattel, had by then acquired general
recognition. Nevertheless, the international legal order of the nineteenth
century was characterized by certain exceptions to this principle, namely
the right of intervention based on treaties and on the principles of self-
help and self-preservation. Attempts by the monarchies of Austria, Russia
and Prussia after 1815 generally to establish a principle of military
intervention on the basis of the Holy Alliance, and by Napoleon III to
find recognition of a right of intervention in favour of national self-
determination remained unsuccessful.
However, a new independent reason for intervention based on
‘humanity’ emerged in theory which was related to the ideas of political
liberalism and the concept of fundamental human rights. State practice
in the nineteenth century increasingly invoked humanitarian reasons
to justify intervention—often, however, as a disguise for intervention
made for political, economic or other reasons. The doctrine played a
role in the intervention by European powers in 1827 in support of
the Greek uprising against the Turks, the intervention by Britain
and France in 1856 in Sicily, allegedly in view of political arrests
and supposed cruel treatment of the prisoners, and the famous
intervention of Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia in Syria
in 1860–1 following the murder of thousands of Christian Maronites
63 Grewe (1984), op. cit., at 578,

relying on Martens, Rougier and
by the Druse Muslims.63 These acts were the prelude to repeated interventions
Dupuis, records that the action, by European powers into the Ottoman Empire in response to uprisings and
which aimed at a reform of the
Turkish administration, was based
killings on Crete in 1866, in Bosnia in 1875, Bulgaria in 1877 and Macedonia
upon the fiction of an invitation to in 1887. Other instances—of diplomatic intercession—on humanitarian
intervene by the Sultan. The
conclusions of the study of the case
grounds include the protest by Britain, France and Austria, supported by
by I.Pogany, Humanitarian Italy, Spain, Portugal and Sweden in 1863 against the methods used by
Intervention in International Law:
The French Intervention in Syria Re-
Russia to suppress the Polish uprising and numerous protests by the Great
Examined, ICLQ 5 (1986), 182, are Powers, including the United States, against the suppression of the Jews. At
somewhat different.
64 See Grewe (1984), op. cit., at
the turn of the century and later, the intervention by the United States in
579, stressing that the list is by no Cuba in 1898 or the pressure exercised by Britain and the United States on
means exhaustive.
65 Scupin. op. cit., at 771.
Belgium because of the misery of the indigenous population in the Congo,
66 T.Schieder, Crimean War, EPIL 7 and in 1912/13 on Peru in view of the ruthless exploitation of the local
(1984), 59, at 61.
rubber collectors, could also be mentioned.64
68 Text in 52 CTS 243. See H.-J. This practice revealed a new tendency in the official grounds advanced
Schlochauer, Jay Treaty, EPIL 1
(1981), 108–11.
by states to justify intervention in that period, but not a new rule of
customary international law. In reality, states were mostly pursuing their
own ends when intervening in another state for alleged humanitarian
purposes, and thus the institution of intervention, as Scupin notes, ‘was
unable to provide a complete justification for such action’.65 Especially
the frequent interventions in the Ottoman Empire to protect Christians
must be seen in the light of the divergent interests of European powers
at stake in the Middle East and the political order of European Turkey.
Humanitarian intervention was a welcome pretext in their rivalry to
establish influence in the declining Empire of the ‘old man at the
Bosporus’. The Crimean War of 1853, in which Russia went to war
with Turkey officially on the grounds of securing stronger guarantees
for the protection of Christians and was then confronted with the
unexpected French-British military alliance and pressure from Austria,
is instructive historical evidence for ‘the rise of a new era of power-
political realpolitik’.66
The peaceful settlement of disputes

At least as a normative concept, the idea of the peaceful settlement of
disputes67 through negotiations, conciliation, mediation or arbitration
evolved since the Peace of Westphalia, although the origins are much older.
Arbitration, in the sense of eliminating a dispute by binding third-party
decision, however, was not accepted by absolute monarchs in practice. The
development of the modern history of arbitration commenced with the 1794
Jay Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, in which Britain and the
United States agreed to settle by an arbitration commission claims for
damages by British and American nationals whose property had been
confiscated or ships taken by the enemy government.68 From 1798 to 1804
the commission rendered over 536 awards, some of which became important
precedents for the subsequent development of the law. This successful
experience was the starting-point for a series of treaties containing arbitration
clauses in the nineteenth century, but the development remained basically
limited to bilateral treaties and disputes of subordinate political interest.
THE PERIOD UP TO THE FIRST WORLD WAR 21
69 A.M.Trebilcock, Slavery, EPIL 8
Prohibition of the slave trade (1985), 481–4; O.I.Tiunov, Pacta sunt
servanda: The Principle of Observing
One aspect that deserves to be mentioned separately is the prohibition of International Treaties in the Epoch of the
the slave trade in the name of humanity.69 By the eighteenth century, the Slave-Owning Society, St. Louis ULJ 38
(1994), 929–45.
expansion of European trade had come to cover not only goods, but in an 70 Additional Articles to the Paris Peace
extensive manner also human beings. It was based on a lucrative triangular Treaty of 30 May 1814, 63 CTS 193.
71 For the earlier development see M.
trade transporting goods from Europe to Africa, African slaves, mostly Keen, The Laws of War in the Late
sold by Arab dealers, to the plantations in America, and finally products Middle Ages, 1993; T.Meron, Henry’s
Wars and Shakespeare’s Laws:
and raw materials from America to Europe. The slave trade started in the Perspectives on the Law of War in the
sixteenth century when Spain granted fixed-term monopoly licences Later Middle Ages, 1993.
(asientos) to private entrepreneurs to introduce African slaves to Spanish 72 See P.Malanczuk, American Civil
War, EPIL I (1992), 129–31.
America and then later involved other European countries. After Britain
had acquired the monopoly from Spain to supply slaves to the Spanish
colonies in 1713, it transferred it to the South Sea Company; it is estimated
that between the years 1680 and 1786 British dealers alone transported
over two million African slaves to America. In total, at least fifteen million
Africans were enslaved for shipment to the Americas.
Opposition to this practice, from both in and beyond the United
Kingdom, gradually led to its prohibition in international law in the
nineteenth century. Following national measures, the first treaty to
condemn the slave trade was concluded between France and Britain in
1814.70 This humanitarian principle was also adopted at the Vienna
Congress of 1815 and in subsequent multilateral treaties leading to the
comprehensive General Act of the Brussels Conference relative to the
African Slave Trade of 1890. The Act was ratified by all European states,
the United States, Persia, Turkey, the Congo and Zanzibar and provided
effective military and legal measures to terminate the slave trade, although
the status of domestic slavery remained unaffected. In the abolition of
the slave trade, the British Royal Navy, ruling the seas, played a central
role as a maritime enforcement agency controlling shipping. At the same
time, as a side-effect, Britain was placed in the useful position of being
able to monitor overseas trade by other states in goods in general.
Humanization of the law of warfare

Furthermore, the humanization of the international law of warfare
commenced with agreements concluded by the military commanders of
the belligerent parties concerning prisoners of war, the wounded and
sick, and the protection of military hospitals already prior to the
nineteenth century.71 Some more relevant developments occurred after
the experience of the Crimean War (1853–6) and the lessons of the first
modern war, the American Civil War (1861–5), with its enormous
casualties on both sides (Union forces: 359,528 dead and 275,175
wounded; Confederate forces: about 258,000 dead and 225,000
wounded),72 and the example of the 1863 Instructions for United States
Armies in the Field (Lieber Code). The Geneva Convention of 1864,
initiated by Henry Dunant, gave some status to work assisting the
wounded. It recognized functions in relation to the state parties to the
Convention of the International Committee of the Red Cross, founded
as a private law association under the laws of the Canton of Geneva in
1863. It was followed by the Petersburg Declaration of 1868
73 The Institute is a private

association of scholars that was
prohibiting the use of small exploding projectiles, which, however, remained
founded in 1873 at the same time as insignificant in practice. A conference in Brussels in 1874 and proposals
the International Law Association,
which is larger and more open. See
presented by the Institut de Droit International73 in 1880 paved the way for
F.Münch, Institut de Droit the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 laying down the basis for
International, EPIL II (1995), 997–
1000; R.Stödter, International Law
the development of modern international humanitarian law.74
Association, ibid., 1207–8.
75 See D.W.Bowett, The Law of First forms of international organizations
International Institutions, 4th edn
1982, 1–13; D.Vignes, The Impact
of International Organizations on the
In the nineteenth century also the first rudimentary forms of international
Development and Application of cooperation emerged.75 Commerce required the inter nationalization of rivers
Public International Law, in
Macdonald/ Johnston (eds), 1983,
and the establishment of international river commissions, as in the case of
op. cit., 809–55; I.Seidl- the Rhine (1831/68),76 the Scheldt (1839)77 and the Danube (1856/ 65).78
Hohenveldern/G.Loibl, Das Recht
der Internationalen Organisationen,
Furthermore, the development of technology, communications and
5th edn 1992, 12–19. commerce prepared the way for international administrative unions with
76 F.Meißner, Rhine River, EPIL 12
(1990), 310–6.
legal personality limited to the discharge of particular functions. These
77 B.Vitányi, Scheldt River, EPIL 12 included the Geodetic Union (1864), concerned with surveying the earth,
(1990), 341–3.
78 I.Seidl-Hohenveldern, Danube
the International Telegraph Union (1865) as the forerunner of the current
River, EPIL I (1992), 934–7. International Telecommunication Union,79 the Universal Postal Union
79 A.Noll, International
Telecommunication Union, EPIL II
(1874),80 the Berne Bureau for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883),81
(1995), 1379–85. the Berne Bureau for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886),82
80 L.Weber, Universal Postal Union,
EPIL 5 (1983), 383–6.
and the Union for the Publication of Customs Tariffs (1890).
81 K.Pfanner, Industrial Property,
Protection of, EPIL II (1995), 964–76.
82 See P.Katzenberger, Literary and The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907
Artistic Works, International
Protection, EPIL 5 (1983), 202–11.
83 J.M.Mössner, Hague Peace
The period of ‘classical’ international law came to an end with the two Hague
Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907,83 the first initiated by Tsar Nicholas II
EPIL II (1995), 671–7.
84 See K.J.Partsch, Vital Interests,
on the basis of his famous peace manifesto, the second by President Theodore
EPIL 10 (1987), 526–8. Roosevelt. The Conference of 1899 resulted in three conventions and three
85 See A.D’Amato, Domestic
Jurisdiction, EPIL I (1992), 1090–6.
declarations dealing with the law of land warfare, the law of sea warfare and
See also Chapters 18, 285–6 and the peaceful settlement of disputes, which led to the innovation of the
21, 368–9 below.
86 Text in AJIL 10 (1916), Supp.
establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. It also
See H.-J.Schlochauer, Bryan adopted a non-binding resolution on limiting the military expenditure of parties.
Treaties (1913/1914), EPIL I (1992),
509–11.
The 1907 Conference accepted a number of further instruments which partly
dealt with the same matters as the earlier Conference. The Conferences, however,
failed to address the real issues of the major tensions in the world and were
thus unable to prevent the outbreak of the First World War. In addition,
important aspects, such as the problem of colonialism, were entirely excluded
from the agenda. It was also characteristic that the compromise finally agreed
upon with regard to the settlement of conflicts by compulsory arbitration, at
the insistence of Britain and France, reserved to states the right to determine for
themselves what affected their ‘vital interests’84 falling within the domaine réservé
(the domestic jurisdiction of states).85 As a consequence, what was in fact
excluded from the obligation to arbitrate was left to the discretion of states.
The attempt to remedy the deficiencies of the ‘vital interests’ clause by
the American Secretary of State W.J.Bryan was objected to by the United
States Senate. The so-called Bryan Treaties of 1913/1486 were actually
concluded only with the Western and Eastern European powers, and only
after the war had already broken out. The United States and Germany did
not enter into such a treaty. The disaster of the First World War itself began
THE WATERSHED AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR 23
87 Text in 225 CTS 188. See E.v.

formally in accordance with classical international law, as it stood at Puttkamer, Versailles Peace Treaty
that time, with declarations of war. (1919), EPIL 4 (1982), 276–82.
What happened to the concept of ‘European public law’ during this 88 I.Seidl-Hohenveldern, Reparations,
EPIL 4 (1982), 178–80.
process? Towards the end of the nineteenth century, colonialism and 89 L.C.Green, British Commonwealth,
relations with territories outside Europe were gradually depriving it of EPIL I (1992), 495–9. See also W.Dale,
The Making and Remaking of
its content. At the Berlin Congress of 1878 only the six major European Commonwealth Constitutions, ICLQ 42
powers and Turkey were present. At the 1884/5 Berlin Congress twelve (1993), 67–83; W.Morvay,
states, including the United States, were already participating. The Hague Souveränitätsübergang und
Rechtskontinuität im Britischen
Peace Conference of 1899 assembled twenty-seven states, including the Commonwealth, 1974.
United States and Mexico, as well as Japan, China, Persia and Siam. At 90 See V.Kartashkin, The Marxist-
the second Peace Conference in 1907, forty-three states took part, among Leninist Approach: The Theory of Class
Struggle and Contemporary
which were seventeen American and four Asian states, but no country International Law, in Macdonald/
from Africa. International law, albeit European in origin, was thus Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 79–102;
T.Schweisfurth, The Role of Political
gradually moving towards a universal system. Revolution in the Theory of International
Law, ibid., 913–53; idem, Socialist
Conceptions of International Law, EPIL
7 (1984), 417–24.
The watershed after the First World War 91 See the short summary in the sixth
edition of this book, 7–19 and K.
Grzybowski, Soviet Theory of International
The end of the First World War heralded a number of basic changes in Law for the Seventies, AJIL 77 (1983),
the international legal system, reflecting the war experience. Defeated 862–72. See also text below, 33.
92 See C.Parry, League of Nations,
Germany had to take sole responsibility for the war, under Article 231 EPIL 5 (1983), 192–201; The League of
of the Treaty of Versailles,87 lost the few colonies it had managed to Nations in Retrospect: Proceedings of
acquire as well as one-third of its territory in Europe, and was submitted the Symposium. Organized by the
United Nations Library and the Graduate
by the victors to a ruinous system of reparations,88 which was severely Institute of International Studies,
criticized by the distinguished economist John Maynard Keynes and Geneva 6–9 November 1980, 1983 and
the review by L.Gross, AJIL 80 (1986),
which helped to sow the seeds for the following war. The relative decline 200–15; H.Weber, League of Nations, in
of European powers as major actors on the world level and the rise of Wolfrum UNLPP II, 848–53.
the United States to global power manifested itself in the transformation 93 A.Rustemeyer, Wilson’s Fourteen
Points, EPIL 7 (1984), 539–42, at 540.
of the British Empire into the British Commonwealth.89
Moreover, the old international community was split by the emergence
of a new and radically different state, following the Russian Revolution
of 1917. The Soviet Union declared itself at odds with the existing system
of international law, but eventually came to some form of accommodation
in order to be able to maintain economic and political intercourse with
the outside world. The revolutionary new state displayed an attitude
towards international law which was quite distinct from the mainstream
of thinking.90 Based upon Marxism, as interpreted by Lenin and later by
Stalin, it originally denied that there could be one system of international
law that applied equally to capitalist and socialist states and rejected the
validity of older customary law and of treaties concluded by the Tsarist
government. The attitude changed later,91 but the Soviet Union remained
on the fringe of international affairs until it attained the status of a great
power after the Second World War.
The League of Nations

On the institutional level, the creation of the League of Nations was a
revolutionary step in inter-state relations.92 It followed the call in the
last of President Wilson’s Fourteen Points93 for the establishment of ‘[a]
general association of nations…under specific covenants for the purpose
of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial
94 K.T.Samson, International
Labour Organization, EPIL II (1995),
integrity to great and small states alike’. The twenty-six articles constituting
1150–6. For the text of the ILO the League were entered into Part I of each of the European Peace Treaties,
Constitution, see Brownlie BDIL, 50.
95 1928 General Treaty for
just as the constitution of the new International Labour Organization94
Renunciation of War as an became incorporated as Part XIII.
Instrument of National Policy, 94
LNTS 57 (1929). See C.D.Wallace,
Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), EPIL 3 The attempt to restrict the use of force
(1982), 236–9.
96 K.Zemanek, Treaties, Secret, The prime purpose of the League was the promotion of international cooperation
EPIL 7 (1984), 505–6; G.E.do
Nascimento Silva, Diplomacy, and the achievement of peace and security by the acceptance on the part of the
Secret, EPIL I (1992), 1033–4, parties, in principle, of ‘obligations not to resort to war’. The absolute right of
noting that at Versailles, Wilson
himself reverted to secret diplomacy
states to go to war was not intended to be excluded altogether. Thus, members
and held more than 150 meetings of the League were submitted to a cooling-off period of three months before
behind closed doors with Lloyd
George, Clemenceau and Orlando.
going to war. If the League Council, the Permanent Court of International
97 See D.Rauschning, Mandates, Justice or an arbitral tribunal were concerned with a dispute, war was only
EPIL 10 (1987), 288–95. permitted three months after a decision by the Court or the tribunal or the
98 See F.Capotorti, Minorities, EPIL
8 (1985), 385–95. On the limited submission of the Council report. Members disregarding such obligations under
judicial activity of the Permanent the Covenant were deemed to have committed an ‘act of war’, entitling, but
Court of International Justice in this
respect, see C.Weil, Minorities in not obliging, other member states to go to war with the state which had broken
Upper Silesia Case (Minority the Covenant. In Article 16 the Covenant provided for economic sanctions as
Schools), EPIL 2 (1981), 189– 91;
K.Lamers, Prince von Pless an instrument of redress, but Article 10, stipulating that members should
Administration (Orders), ibid., 236– undertake ‘to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial
7; C. Weil, Polish Agrarian Reform
(Orders), ibid., 230–1; M.Vierheilig,
integrity and existing political independence of all Members’, was not linked to
Minority Schools in Albania the sanctions system. Rather, the Council of the League was entrusted with the
(Advisory Opinion), ibid., 191–2; task of ‘advising’ on the methods of complying with this obligation. The
Weil, German Minorities in Poland,
Cases Concerning the, EPIL II uncertainty on the precise implications of this provision was the main reason
(1995), 553–5; W.Benedek, why the United States Senate refused to ratify the Covenant.
Exchange of Greek and Turkish
Populations (Advisory Opinions), The Paris Pact of 1928 on the Banning of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact),95
ibid., 304–5; C.V. Katte, Greco- initiated by the United States and France, attempted to achieve a broader
Bulgarian ‘Communities’ (Advisory
Opinion), ibid., 622–3. On the current prohibition of war, but it also refrained from establishing an effective
status of the protection of minorities enforcement mechanism. The right of self-defence, interpreted in a rather
in international law, see Chapters 6,
105–8 and 19, 338–41 below.
wide sense, was not affected. Britain reserved its rights to defend its vital
interests in protecting the British Empire, and the United States kept the
application of the Monroe Doctrine to its own discretion. Neither the League
system nor the Paris Pact were yet able to effectively replace the old customary
rule on the right of states to use armed force.
Other functions of the League

The League was further engaged in trying to promote disarmament and
open diplomacy to abolish the practice of secret treaties.96 Other functions
included the establishment of the mandates system, as ‘a trust for civilization’,
under Article 22 which put under international tutelage the nascent nations
in the former colonies of the defeated powers and of colonial territories
similarly detached.97 Moreover, responsibilities were assumed by the League
in the field of the treaty-based protection of minorities in Europe98 and in
social matters, such as health and fair labour standards.
The Permanent Court of Justice

Some advance was made in the inter-war period not only with regard to
international legislation dealing with social and economic affairs, but also
THE WATERSHED AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR 25
in international adjudication with the creation in 1921 of the Permanent 99 See H.-J.Schlochauer, Permanent
Court of International Justice, EPIL 1
Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in The Hague,99 the forerunner of (1981), 163–79; P.Haggenmacher/R.
the present International Court of Justice, which was later established Perruchoud/H.Dipla (eds), Cour
permanente de justice internationale
under the United Nations Charter.100 The Court handed down thirty-two 1922–1945, Vols 5–I and 5–II, 1989.
judgments in contentious cases, mostly between European states, and 100 See Chapter 18 below, 281–93.
twenty-seven advisory opinions which assisted in clarifying rules and 101 H.-J.Schlochauer, Permanent Court
of Arbitration, EPIL 1 (1981), 157–63.
principles of international law. Operating within a still limited and relatively On the reform of the PCA see Chapter
homogeneous society of nations, it enjoyed considerable authority, more 18 below, 294.
than was to be accorded later to the International Court of Justice. The 102 Generally on the concept see J.
Delbrück, Collective Security, EPIL I
activity of the Permanent Court of International Justice offers an (1992), 646–56; K.Doehring, Collective
explanation for why the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which Security, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 110–5;
G.Bestermöller, Die Völkerbundsidee—
was established earlier but did not really constitute a standing court, Leistungsfähigkeit und Grenzen der
received only a small number of cases.101 Kriegsächtung durch Staatensolidarität,
1995. See also Chapter 22 below, 387–
415.
103 See H.A.Kissinger, Diplomacy,
Failure of the League system 1994, Chapter 10. For another critical
view see A.Eban, The U.N. Idea
Revisited, FA 74 (1995), 39–55.
In the field of peace and security, the refusal of a great power, such as the
United States, to join the League naturally placed the novel organization
into a difficult position to achieve its objectives. In effect, the League
subsequently came to be controlled by the interests of France and Britain.
Ratification was also denied by the Hejaz (Arabia) and Ecuador, but it is
interesting to note that all other generally recognized states were at some
time a member of the League. Originally, the membership of the League
was limited to the twenty-seven victor states signing the Treaty of
Versailles, plus ‘the British Empire’ (the United Kingdom, the Dominions
of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the still-dependent
India), plus thirteen listed neutral states. Later twenty-two new members
were admitted, including the former enemy states Austria and Bulgaria
(1920), Hungary (1922) and Germany (1926). The Soviet Union,
originally excluded, was admitted in 1934. But in the course of time
sixteen members also withdrew, including Costa Rica (1927), Brazil
(1928), Germany and Japan (1935), Italy (1939) and Spain (1941).
The League system failed for a variety of institutional and political
reasons. The most important aspect is perhaps the inherent contradiction
in the concept itself of collective security102 in the form of a mere
association of self-interested and sovereign states. The concept assumes
that all states have an equally strong interest in preventing aggression,
and that all states are willing to take the same risk to achieve this. If a
great power is involved in an act of aggression, the validity of this
assumption may well be very much open to doubt.103 At any rate, it
soon became clear that the organs of the League could only function to
the extent that the member states were able to agree.
The League remained incapable of dealing with the Japanese aggression
against China in 1932 when it occupied Manchuria, and with the Italian
aggression against Abyssinia in 1935–6. Limited economic sanctions adopted
by some fifty members of the League against Italy failed. This was the first
and last attempt to enforce the Covenant against a major power. In the
Spanish Civil War (1936–9), which was viewed as a threat to world peace
because of the direct and indirect intervention of many states, the
League affirmed the principle of non-intervention (the obligation of states
104 See A.-M.de Zayas, Spanish

Civil War, EPIL 7 (1984), 434–8.
not to intervene in the internal affairs of other states), demanded the
105 Parry, op. cit., at 200. withdrawal of all foreign combatants and condemned the bombardment of
106 On Germany’s international
relations from 1933 to 1945 and the
open towns, but the League’s resolutions had little effect.104 Japan’s renewed
attitude towards international law, aggression against China in 1937 merely produced a condemnation by the
see D.F.Vagts, International Law in
the Third Reich, AJIL 84 (1990),
League of the aerial bombardment of undefended towns. Germany’s attack
661–704; A. Carty, Interwar German on Poland in 1939 and the outbreak of the Second World War resulted in
Theories of International Law: The
Psychoanalytical and
nothing more than the postponement of already arranged Assembly and
Phenomenological Perspections of Council sessions. The last action of the League was to expel the Soviet Union
Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt,
Cardozo LR 16 (1995), 1235–92.
in 1939 because it refused to accept mediation of its claim against Finland.
107 For a new analysis on the basis A fair assessment of the failure of the League, however, must take into
of declassified documents fifty years
later, see B.J.Bernstein, The Atomic
account its confrontation with the ruthless totalitarian regimes of the period.
Bombings Reconsidered, FA 74 As noted by Clive Parry:
(1995), 135–52.
108 On the 1996 advisory opinion
given by the ICJ, see Chapter 20 it was the destiny of the League to encounter a greater measure of
below, 346–50.
deliberate aggression, attended by a wilful and deliberate disregard
of all humanitarian considerations, than has ever been
manifestated—again either before or since— in any comparable
span of years. For Japan, Italy and Germany in turn asserted during
the life of the League an absolute right to go to war for any reason
or no reason, and an indifference to the laws of either war or peace
to which the only ultimate answer could be, as in fact it proved to
be, likewise war unlimited in scale or method.105
Development after the Second World War
The international legal system had failed to prevent the outbreak of the
Second World War, to constrain the aggression by Hitler and to stop the
unspeakable atrocities committed by Nazi Germany throughout Europe.106
Nor did it prevent, to take a quite different example, the calculated Allied
destruction by saturation bombing of German and Japanese cities, causing
immense casualties among the civilian population. Before the United Nations
Charter, signed on 26 June 1945, entered into force on 24 October 1945,
the United States ended the war in the Pacific by using the atomic bomb
against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Whether this was
necessary, to force Japan into capitulation and save the lives of many
American soldiers and further Japanese military and civilian casualties which
an invasion of Japan may have resulted in, or was at least equally meant as
a warning to Stalin, is still a matter of dispute among historians,107 as also
is the issue of the legality of nuclear weapons under current international
law among lawyers.108 The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials affirmed the
individual responsibility of German and Japanese leaders for committing
crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but were
often seen as the victor’s justice, although the procedures were fair.109
The prohibition of the use of force and collective security in

the United Nations Charter
The decision to establish a new global organization of states to preserve
peace after the war had already been prepared by the Atlantic Charter of
1941, in which Roosevelt and Churchill declared their hope ‘after the
DEVELOPMENT AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR 27
110 Text in AJIL 35 (1941), 191. See H.-
final destruction of Nazi tyranny…to see established a peace which will J.Schlochauer, Atlantic Charter (1941),
afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own EPIL I (1992), 288–9.
111 See H.-J.Schlochauer, Dumbarton
boundaries’ and ‘to bring about the fullest collaboration between all Oaks Conference (1944), EPIL I (1992),
nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved 1115–17; W.Benediks, The San
Francisco Conference on International
labour standards, economic advancement and social security’.110 Organization: April–June 1945, 1994;
The United Nations Charter, sponsored by the United States, Britain, W.G.Grewe, The History of the United
Nations, in Simma CUNAC, 1–23; H.
the Soviet Union and China, and originally signed by fifty-one states, was Weber, History of the United Nations, in
designed to introduce law and order and an effective collective security Wolfrum UNLPP I, 572–80; R.C.
Hilderbrand, Dumbarton Oaks. The
system into international relations. On the basis of preparatory work done Origins of the United Nations and the
at the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference, the Charter of the United Search for Postwar Security, 1990. See
Chapters 21, 364–84 and 22, 385–430
Nations was adopted at the 1945 San Francisco Conference and entered below.
into force on 24 October 1945.111 The main innovation was the attempt 112 See Chapter 19 below, 309–18.
113 See Chapter 22 below, 387–415,
to introduce a comprehensive ban on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the 425–30.
Charter, with the exception of the right of states to collective and individual 114 L.Weber, Cuban Quarantine, EPIL I
(1992), 882–5.
self-defence against an armed attack, in Article 51.112 The preservation of 115 For a critical assessment see R.S.
peace was made the overriding goal of the United Nations. While the McNamara (with B.VanDeMark), In
Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons
League of Nations had possessed no institutional machinery and executive of Vietnam, 1994. See also Chapter 19
power to enforce the Covenant and decisions of the League, the United below, 325.
116 See Chapters 21, 374–7 and 22,
Nations Charter established a collective security system in Chapter VII, 391 below.
giving the Security Council the authority to determine whether there is a 117 See Chapter 20 below, 349.
threat to or breach of international peace and security and to adopt binding
economic and military measures against an aggressor state.113
The UN collective system did not work, due to the antagonism that
developed between the former allies after the war, and during the Cold
War in the following four decades, the United Nations failed to achieve
its prime objective. Thus, for example, the controversial military
‘quarantine’ imposed by the United States upon Cuba in 1962 in response
to the build-up in Cuba of Soviet missiles with a capability of reaching
targets in large parts of the Western Hemisphere, used the regional system
of the Organization of American States (OAS) instead of the non-
functioning UN collective security system for legitimization.114 Another
example of the non-functioning of the UN collective security mechanism
during the East-West conflict is the fact that the Vietnam War never led
to any decision by the Security Council.115
The recognition of the special military, economic and political status
of great powers, however, was built in from the beginning in the regulation
of the voting procedure of the Security Council, giving the United States,
the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China (originally represented by the
government of Taiwan) as ‘permanent members’ the right to veto any
decision they disliked.116 The statement in Article 2(1) of the Charter that
the organization ‘is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all
its Members’ was thus qualified by the fact that the five permanent members
of the Security Council were made more equal than the rest of the member
states. Similarly, the five official nuclear powers retained a privileged legal
position in the later Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.117
The relative decline of Britain and France as Great Powers became
most apparent in the 1956 Suez crisis when the United States and the
USSR found a rare occasion to unite in the UN Security Council and
forced them to withdraw from their military occupation of the Suez
118 B.Broms, Suez Canal, EPIL 12

(1990), 360–5. See also G.Marston,
Canal118 area, which they had undertaken (with Israel’s simultaneous
Armed Intervention in the 1956 occupation of the Sinai Peninsula) in response to the nationalization of the
Suez Canal Crisis: The Legal Advice
Tendered to the British Government,
Suez Canal Company by the Egyptian Government.
ICLQ 37 (1988), 773. SC Res. 118
of 13 October 1956, UN Doc. S/
3675, laid down the requirements for Decolonization and change in the composition of the
a satisfactory settlement of the
dispute and the future status of the international community
Canal.
119 See H.-J.Uibopuu, Socialist The composition of the international community had already started to change
Internationalism, EPIL 9 (1986),
347– 50; S.v.Schorlemer, Blocs and
immediately after the Second World War. The Soviet Union created the ‘socialist
Groups of States, in Wolfrum bloc’ with the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary,
UNLPP I, 69–77.
120 See A.Bleckmann,
Romania and Czechoslovakia under its hegemony, joined by the more
Decolonization, EPIL I (1992), 972– independent Yugoslavia.119 But perhaps more important for the structural
6; W.Morvay, British Territories, ibid.,
976–83; A. Bleckmann, French
transition of the international legal system has been the process of
Territories, ibid, 986–90; decolonization,120 based upon the principle of self-determination laid down
J.G.C.v.Aggelen, Dutch Territories,
ibid., 983–6; F.de Quadros,
in the UN Charter and in the common Article 1 of the two 1966 International
Decolonization: Portuguese Human Rights Covenants.121 The colonial empires of Britain, France, Belgium,
Territories, ibid., 990–3; M.A.Ajomo,
International Law, The United
the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy, often confronted with liberation
Nations and Decolonization, in movements,122 eroded with the political independence, for example, of Syria
E.G.Bello/B.A.Ajibola (eds), Essays
in Honour of Judge Taslim Olawale
(1945), Lebanon (1946), India and Pakistan (1947), Israel and Burma (1948),
Elias, 1992, 77–92; P.Kunig, Indonesia (1949), Libya (1951), Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan and Ghana (1956),
Decolonization, in Wolfrum UNLPP
I, 390–7.
Malaya (1957) and Guinea (1958). The decolonization process was basically
121 See Chapter 19 below, 326–40. completed by the 1960s, after the landmark of the adoption by the UN General
122 K.Ginther, Liberation
Movements, EPIL 3 (1982), 245–9.
Assembly in 1960 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
See Chapters 3, 104–5 and 19, Colonial Countries and Peoples.123 The increase in the number of states to
336–8 below.
123 GA Res. 1514 (XV) of 14
about 130 by the end of the 1960s, almost half of which were newly
December 1960, text in Brownlie independent states, had a profound impact on the international system in
BDIL, 307. See Chapter 19 below,
327.
general and the operation of international organizations in particular.
124 D.Bindschedler-Robert, Korea, At the beginning, the United Nations had remained under the control of
EPIL 12 (1990), 202–8; S.Brammer,
Conflicts, Korea, in Wolfrum UNLPP
the West, which still commanded a majority of the seats in the General
I, 278–85. See Chapter 22 below, Assembly. Thus, it was not difficult to make the Korean War,124 the Soviet
391–3.
Union being temporarily absent in the Security Council because of the dispute
126 On the ‘Uniting for Peace’ on the representation of China,125 at least pro forma a United Nations
Resolution, see Chapter 22 below,
392–3.
operation.126 The independence of numerous new states in Asia and Africa
127 See Chapter 15 below, 225–8. changed the whole scenario and the majority in the General Assembly and
128 For a critical analysis see, N.
Harris, The End of the Third World.
the assemblies of other international organizations shifted to an alliance
Newly Industrializing Countries and between the block of communist countries and the new states of the so-
the Decline of an Ideology, 1986.
See also M.S.Rajan/V.S.Mani/
called Third World. However, Western states retained their dominant
C.S.R.Murthy, The Nonaligned and position in the Security Council and in the relevant international financial
the United States, 1987;
A.A.Fatouros, Developing States,
institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,
EPIL I (1992), 1017–24; R.Heuser, due to their economic power where weighted voting applied according to
Bandung Conference (1955), ibid.,
340–2; J.Betz, Developing
the share of financial contribution.127 Under the leadership of the United
Countries, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, States the Western states also remained dominant in the international system
398–406 and Chapter 15 below,
233–40.
in military and political terms.
Attitudes of Third World states towards international law

It is still much less easy to generalize about the so-called Third World128 states
of Africa, Asia and Latin America than it once was to generalize about the
former bloc of communist states controlled by the Soviet Union. The
129 See Wang Tieya, The Third World
newly independent states, which organized themselves as non-aligned and International Law, in Macdonald/
countries between East and West in the Group of 77 formed during Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 955 et
UNCTAD I in 1964, do not form a bloc in any real sense. They have no seq.; M.Schweitzer, New States and
International Law, EPIL 7 (1984), 349–
common ideology. Their governments vary from the far right to the far 53; F.E.Synder/S.Sathirathai (eds), Third
left of the political spectrum. There are also considerable cultural and World Attitudes Toward International
economic differences. However, there are certain facts which are true of Law: An Introduction, 1987; Harris CMIL,
18–21; M.Kusuma-Atmadja, The
the vast majority of states in the South, and these facts tend to make most Contribution of New States to the
of those states adopt a distinctive attitude towards international law. Development of International Law, Santa
Clara LR 32 (1992), 889–910;
Most developing countries were under alien rule during the formative M.Shahabuddeen, Developing Countries
period of international law, and therefore played no part in shaping that and the Idea of International Law, in
law. Occasionally their leaders argue that they are not bound by rules Macdonald (ed.), 1994, op. cit., 721–36;
M.Bedjaoui, La visión de las culturas no
which they did not help to create. However, this argument is used only occidentales sobre la legitimidad del
in relation to rules which go against the interests of the new states, and derecho international contemporáneo,
the argument that those states played no part in shaping the rules is only Anu. DI 11 (1995), 23–62.
a subsidiary argument designed to strengthen the main contention that 131 See Chapter 12 below, 176–84.
the rules are outmoded. Developing states have never dreamt of rejecting 132 See Chapter 15 below, 233–5.
all rules of international law which were laid down before they became 134 See Chapter 13 below, 207–8.
independent; to do so would mean rejecting many rules which operate 135 See Chapter 15 below, 233–5, 239–40.
to their advantage. The necessity of international law itself as a legal
system regulating intercourse between states was accepted.129
Most countries in the South are poor (with a few exceptions, such as
some of the oil-exporting countries and the ‘New Tigers’ in the Far East)
and are anxious to develop their economies. Those which wished to
develop their economies along socialist lines were therefore in the past
opposed to the traditional rule of international law which forbids
expropriation of foreign-owned property without compensation; but
other Third World countries showed themselves prepared to accept the
traditional rule as a means of encouraging foreign private investment.130
This once fervently argued issue in North-South relations has now lost
much of its former significance. The economic interests of developing
countries also affect their attitudes to other rules of international law;
for instance, if their fishing fleets are dependent on local fisheries, this
naturally influences their position on the law of the sea, and some of
them have tried to gain exclusive rights to local fisheries by claiming a
wide territorial sea, exclusive fishing zone, or exclusive economic zone.131
Since 1973 Third World states have confronted the richer states more
pressingly with their problems of poverty and economic development.
Not surprisingly, the UN General Assembly and other assemblies of
international organizations became their main forums to ventilate claims
for a ‘New International Economic Order’,132 a ‘New International
Communication Order’ (which was one of the reasons why the United
States and the United Kingdom left UNESCO), the application of the
so-called ‘common heritage of mankind’ principle to the benefits of deep-
sea mining133 and the use of outer space,134 and other mechanisms and
concepts to attempt to change international law and to effect the
recognition of a legal obligation of industrialized states to transfer
technology and financial resources to the South. On the whole, Western
states have not accepted these demands; they have helped the economic
development of poorer states in many ways, but are usually reluctant to
recognize or undertake any legal obligation to help poorer states.135
Moreover, many developing states have a feeling of resentment about

137 See Chapter 14 below, 220.
past exploitation, real or imagined. That is one reason why they usually
138 See Chapter 19 below, 326–340. claim that they have not succeeded to obligations accepted on their behalf
by the former colonial powers before they became independent.136 Almost
141 See Chapter 3 below, 52–4. all of them showed themselves as strongly opposed to all remaining forms
142 For example, concerning the
continental shelf, see Chapter 12
of colonialism and apartheid,137 although their reactions to violations of
below, 191–3. the principle of self-determination in other contexts are much weaker.138
143 A.Carty, The Decay of
International Law? A Reappraisal of
For the reasons stated above, developing countries often feel that international
the Limits of Legal Imagination in law sacrifices their interests to those of Western states. They therefore demand
International Affairs, 1986.
144 R.Wolfrum, International Law of
changes in the law. Unfortunately, if there is no consensus, it is often difficult to
Cooperation, EPIL II (1995), 1242–7. change international law without breaking it. States may refuse to alter a treaty
145 See M.Lachs, Legal Framework
of an International Community,
unless they are forced to do so. States which are dissatisfied with an existing
Emory ILR 6 (1992), 329–37; rule of customary law may start following a new custom, but, until the new
H.Mosler, International Legal
Community, EPIL II (1995), 1251–5.
custom is widely established, they may be denounced as law-breakers by states
following the old custom.139 One solution for this problem has been the
multilateral treaty; conferences called to draw up a treaty codifying the existing
law can slip imperceptibly into amending the law.140 Another solution favoured
by developing countries has been to try to use the United Nations General
Assembly as if it were a legislature; but the General Assembly is not really a
legislature, and it is doubtful if its resolutions can be used as evidence of
international law against states which vote against them.141
Nevertheless, major changes in international law have occurred since 1945.
Western states were anxious not to drive Third World states into the arms of
communist states, and have therefore agreed to many of the alterations sought
by the non-aligned countries. Most of the rules which developing countries
used to regard as contrary to their interests have changed, or are in the process
of being changed. Similarly, when the interests of Western states change, such
states are often just as ready as other states to abandon the old rules and to
replace them with new rules which are more in keeping with their own
interests.142 Modern international law is not static, but has a dynamic nature
and is in a continuous process of change. The accusation that international
law is biased against the interests of Third World states is, on the whole, no
longer true.
Universality and the challenge to the unity of international law

In the historical process of the transition from the classical system to the
modern system, international law definitely lost its European character and
was extended from a limited club of nations to a global system now covering
some 185 states which are very heterogeneous entities in cultural, economic
and political terms. The basic question ever since has been whether a truly
universal system of law is possible at all under the conditions of a divided
world with such deep cleavages in values, interests, and perceptions. Writers
have frequently found that international law is in a ‘crisis’, or has entered
into ‘decay’.143
At least with respect to the basic normative framework, after 1945
international law entered into a new phase aiming at restricting the unfettered
right of states to go to war and, in addition, transforming the previous
mere coordination of sovereign states into a system of cooperation
and mutual benefit.144 The concept of the ‘international legal community’145

emerged in connection with two other basic concepts of international 147 See G.Jaenicke, International
law— jus cogens146 and international public order147 —both referring to Public Order, EPIL II (1995), 1348–51.
principles and rules of international law with a higher legal status than 149 See Chapter 3 below, 60–2.
the other parts of international law. There were other significant changes 150 See Chapters 6, 100–4, 14, 209–21
and 20, 342–63 below.
in the international legal system after 1945. The main feature mostly 151 M.Münchau, International Relations,
emphasized is the shift from coexistence to cooperation of states, not East-West, in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 771–
7. See also W.M.Reisman, International
only to achieve international peace and security, but also to further social Law after the Cold War, AJIL 84 (1990),
and economic goals. This is reflected in the proliferation of international 859–66; E.McWhinny et al. (eds), From
Coexistence to Cooperation:
organizations, both global and regional, now numbering about 500 and International Law and Organization in
active in a broad variety of fields, which appeared within a relatively the Post-Cold War Era, 1991; G.Abi-
Saab, A ‘New World Order’? Some
short time as a new category of international legal subjects.148 It was Preliminary Reflections, Hague YIL 7
primarily in the social and economic field in which the United Nations (1994), 87–94.
152 J.Betz, International Relations, North-
and its specialized agencies were able to make some progress. Connected South, in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 778–88.
with this extension of the scope of activity was the enhanced process of 153 See Chapter 22 below, 391, 395–
415, 423–30.
the codification of international law.149 154 Lukashuk, The United Nations and
Another new development after 1945, as compared with classical Illegitimate Regimes: When to Intervene
to Protect Human Rights, in L.F.
international law, has been a stronger recognition of the position of the Damrosch/D.J.Scheffer (eds), Law and
individual. While previously the individual was considered a mere ‘object’ Force in the New International Order,
1992, 143; T.M.Franck, Intervention
of international regulations adopted by sovereign states, more room has Against Illegitimate Regimes, ibid., 159;
been given to the thought of upgrading the status of human beings in A.-M.Burley, Commentary on
Intervention Against Illegitimate
international law. This is reflected in the development of rules on the Regimes, ibid., 177; V.Nanda,
international protection of refugees, the codification of human rights on Commentary on International
Intervention to Promote the Legitimacy
the global and regional level following the Universal Declaration of of Regimes, ibid., 181. See in this
Human Rights, proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1948, and connection also on the entitlement to
democracy, to be increasingly promoted
the advancement of international humanitarian law in armed conflict and protected by collective international
with the four Geneva Red Cross Conventions of 1949 and the two processes, T.M.Franck, The Emerging
Right to Democratic Governance, AJIL
Additional Protocols of 1977.150 86 (1992), 46 et seq.; J.Crawford,
The end of the East-West conflict,151 apart from moving North-South Democracy and International Law, BYIL
64 (1993), 113–34.
issues152 more to the forefront, has led to the resurgence of nationalism, 155 See Chapter 14 below, 220–1.
to the rise of ethnic conflict and civil wars in various parts of the world, 156 D.Copp/J.Hamption/J.Roemer
(eds), The Idea of Democracy, 1995.
and to the hitherto unknown activism of the UN Security Council.153 In 157 F.Fukuyama, The End of History?,
Western legal literature the end of the Cold War has provoked a The National Interest, 1989, no. 16, 3–18.
controversy on the legality of ‘democratic intervention’,154 intervention
to support or establish a democratic system of government in another
state against ‘illegitimate regimes’, in connection with the discussion on
humanitarian intervention.155 The general proposition of this intervention
theory is that there is a necessary structural link between democracy,156
as it developed in Western constitutional history, and the effective
guarantee of human rights. The problem is, of course, whether Western
concepts, including those on the market economy and on human rights,
can prevail throughout the world in the face of Asian, African and Islamic
perceptions which are different for reasons of history, society and culture.
Moreover, after the wall in Berlin fell, writers, such as Francis
Fukuyama,157 declared the ‘end of history’ and the victory of Western
democracy and capitalism. But, from a different perspective, perhaps
the USSR and the United States were and are only experimental states in
the long course of the history of a rather mixed international community.
Western civilization is certainly not the only form of civilization in the
158 S.P.Huntington, The Clash of

Civilizations?, FA 72 (1993), 22–49.
world, and its values and regulatory systems, including its law, are not
159 See E.Sakakibara, The End of necessarily appropriate or acceptable in other parts of the globe. On the
Progressivism, FA 74 (1995), 8–14.
160 See EPIL 6 (1983), dedicated to
other hand, whether Samuel Huntington’s prediction158 that ‘civilization
Regional Cooperation, Organizations identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be
and Problems; S.González Gálvez,
The Future of Regionalism in an
shaped in large measure by the interaction among seven or eight civilizations’
Asymmetrical System, in Macdonald/ and will lead to a clash of civilizations in the next century, remains to be
Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 661–
83; R.Wolfrum (ed.), Strengthening
seen.159 Such predictions are not new (and are often false) in history, as we
the World Order, Universalism versus know from Spengler’s ‘Untergang des Abendlandes’.
Regionalism, Risks and Opportunities Nevertheless, also from a legal perspective, there is no doubt that the
of Regionalization, 1990; J.I.Charney,
Universal International Law, AJIL 87 question of the universal nature of international law has been reinforced
(1993), 529– 51; A.Hurrell, Explaining not only by theoretical debate but also by the actual strong tendencies
the Resurgence of Regionalism in
World Politics, RIS 21 (1995), 331–
towards economic and political regionalism in the international system.160
58; C.Schreuer, Regionalization, in The answer to this question is not easy and needs to take into acount the
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1059–67; content of contemporary international law in its various fields and the
Schreuer, Regionalism v.
Universalism, EJIL 6 (1995), 477–99. characteristics of the international law-making process. As a starting-point,
161 UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 however, it may be observed that there is at least universal agreement on
October 1970, text in Brownlie BDIL, some basic principles of international law, as laid down in the Friendly
36; see V.S.Mani, Basic Principles
of Modern International Law. A Relations Declaration, which after a long process of attempting to clarify
Study of the United Nations Debates the meaning of the United Nations Charter was adopted by all states by
on the Principles of International
Law Concerning Friendly Relations
consensus in 1970.161 These principles include:
and Cooperation Among States,
1993; V.Lowe/C.Warbrick (eds), The 1 the prohibition of the threat or use of force by states against the territorial
United Nations and the Principles of
International Law—Essays in integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
Memory of Michael Akehurst, 1994 inconsistent with the purposes of the Charter;
(with contributions by I.Sinclair, Ch.
Gray, J.Merrills, V.Lowe,
2 the peaceful settlement of disputes between states in such a manner that
D.McGoldrick, A. Boyle, international peace and security and justice are not endangered;
D.Freestone, A.James, P. 3 the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of
Thornberry, C.Warbrick and
G.White); G.Arangio-Ruiz, Friendly any state, in accordance with the Charter;
Relations Resolution, EPIL II (1995), 4 the duty of states to cooperate with one another in accordance with the
485–90. Charter;
162 See B.Simma, Editorial, EJIL 3
(1992), 215; P.Allott et al., Theory 5 the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples;
and International Law: An 6 the principle of sovereign equality of states; and
Introduction, 1991.
163 See text above, 15–17. On A.
7 the principle that states shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed
Verdross, see the contributions by B. by them in accordance with the Charter.
Simma, A.Truyol y Serra, B.Conforti,
A. Carty and I.Seidl-Hohenveldern in
EJIL 6 (1995), 32–115. On
D.Anzilotti, see R.Ago, P.-M.Dupuy, New developments in theory
G.Gaja, J.M.Ruda and A.Tanca in
EJIL 3 (1992), 92 et seq. On
G.Scelles, see H.Thierry, A. Cassese, Finally, it should at least be briefly mentioned that there have been some
L.Condorelli, R.J.Dupuy and A.Tanca interesting new developments in theory during the past decade.162 The old schools
in EJIL 1 (1990), 193 et seq.
164 See M.S.McDougal/W.M. of natural law and positivism163 are still with us, and it seems that the latter
Reisman, International Law in today forms the basis of mainstream thinking in international law in one form
Policy-Oriented Perspective, in
Macdonald/ Johnston (eds), 1983, or another. In addition, the ‘policy-orientated’ New Haven school founded by
op. cit., 103–29; M.McDougal and the Yale professor Myres S.McDougal164 gained widespread influence at the
Associates, Studies in World Public
Order, 1987; G.L.Dorsey, The height of the Cold War even outside the United States. This perspective regards
McDougal-Laswell Proposal to Build international law as a constant flow of authoritative decision-making in which
a World Public Order, AJIL 82
(1988), 41–50; M.S.McDougal, The legal argument is only one factor among many others; therefore, it has been
Dorsey Comment: A Modest criticized by positivist views (especially in Europe) as abandoning the very
Retrogression, ibid., 51–7; H.D.
Lasswell/M.S.McDougal, concept of law and legal rules. Often, however, in deciding a practical case in
Jurisprudence for a Free Society, 2 international law, such theories are not much different in their results.
Vols, 1992.
In the West, a new school of ‘Critical Legal Studies’, which started in 165 See D.Kennedy, A New Stream of
International Law Scholarship, Wis.
the United States, has emerged, vigorously challenging traditional ILJ 7 (1988), 6 et seq.;
positivist perceptions of international law from a methodological point M.Koskenniemi, From Apology to
Utopia: The Structure of International
of view based on analytical language philosophy and a hermeneutical Legal Argument, 1989; Koskenniemi,
theory of law.165 The ‘deconstruction’ of international legal argumentation The Politics of International Law, EJIL
1 (1990), 4–32; A.Carty, Critical
by these critical legal scholars denies that, in view of its indeterminacy, International Law: Recent Trends in
inconsistency and lack of coherence, international law has a distinct the Theory of International Law, EJIL 2
(1991), 66 et seq.; O.de Schutter, Les
existence of its own. Other modes of inquiry, inspired by the writings of critical legal studies au pays du droit
Thomas M. Franck, address basic issues of the ‘legitimacy’ and ‘fairness’ international public, Droit et Soc. 22
(1992), 585– 605; G.Dencho, Politics
of the international legal system from a different angle.166 In addition, or Rule of Law: Deconstruction and
some more Utopian theories have entered the market-place of ideas167 Legitimacy in International Law, EJIL 4
(1993), 1–14.
and there is also now a claim to a ‘feminist approach’ to international 166 See T.M.Franck, The Power of
law.168 Another interesting development to be mentioned is the effort Legitimacy Among Nations, 1990; T.M.
Franck/S.W.Hawkins, Justice in the
recently being made to attempt to bridge the gap between international International System, Mich. JIL 10
law theory and international relations theory.169 (1989), 127; J.E.Alvarez, The Quest for
Legitimacy: An Examination of the Power
At least for the time being, the Marxist-Leninist theory of international of Legitimacy Among Nations, NYUJILP
law170 has vanished from the arena and has become of mere historical 24 (1991), 199–267; Franck, Fairness in
International Law and Institutions, 1995.
interest. After the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet See also D.D.Caron, The Legitimacy of
Empire, there has been a change in attitude in the former Communist the Collective Authority of the Security
Council, AJIL 87 (1993), 552–88; Caron,
states towards international law in general, the precise implications and Governance and Collective
durability of which, however, remain to be seen.171 The same applies to Legitimization in the New World Order,
Hague YIL 6 (1993), 29–44.
the awakening of interest in international law in China.172 To which 167 See the inspiring writings by P.
extent Islamic perceptions of international law are developing into a Allott, Eunomia. New Order for a New
World, 1990; Allott, Reconstituting
separate direction is also an open and interesting question.173 Humanity—New International Law, EJIL
The output of theory, on the abstract level, is certainly of academic 3 (1992), 219–52.
168 See, for example, H.Charlesworth/
interest for understanding the nature of the international legal system, C.Chinkin/S.Wright, Feminist
but it has limited relevance for the actual practice of states and the Approaches to International Law, AJIL
85 (1991), 613–45; D.G.Dallmeyer (ed.),
problems that have to be solved in daily life. As the enlightened Dutch Reconceiving Reality: Women and
scholar Röling noted in 1960: International Law, 1993.
169 See G.Doeker, Internationale
Beziehungen und Völkerrecht als
In all positive law is hidden the element of power and the element Gegenstand der Forschung und Lehre,
AVR 19 (1980–1), 401 et seq., with
of interest. Law is not the same as power, nor is it the same as references to the Anglo-American
interest, but it gives expression to the former power-relation. literature which is traditionally much
more open to such questions; K.W.
Law has the inclination to serve primarily the interests of the Abott, Modern International Relations
powerful. ‘European’ international law, the traditional law of Theory: A Prospectus for International
Lawyers, Yale JIL 14 (1989), 335–411;
nations, makes no exception to this rule. It served the interest of A.-M.Slaughter Burley, International Law
prosperous nations.174 and International Relations Theory: A
Dual Agenda, AJIL 87 (1993), 205– 39;
S.V.Scott, International Law as Ideology:
The real question is, therefore, which interests does international law Theorizing the Relationship between
International Law and International
now serve in a much more expanded, diverse, but increasingly Politics, EJIL 5 (1994), 313–25; D.Frei,
interdependent world, and the answer requires a closer look at various International Relations, EPIL II (1995),
1359–64; A.C.Arend/ R.J.Beck/
branches of the ‘law in action’ in international relations in the following R.D.V.Lugt (eds), International Rules.
chapters. Approaches from International Law and
International Relations, 1996;
V.Rittberger (ed.), Regime Theory and
International Relations, 1993; C.Brown,
International Relations Theory: New
Normative Approaches, 1992. See
further C.A.Kiss/D. Shelton, Systems
Analysis of International Law: A
Methodological Inquiry, NYIL 17 (1986),
45–74.
170 See text above, 23. For a recent International Law: Soviet Doctrines and Violence: Islamic Law and
analysis from a Marxist point of view see Practice in the Post-Tunkin Era, CYIL International Terrorism, GYIL 31
B.S.Chimni, International Law and World 28 (1990), 309–37; W.E.Butler (ed.), (1988), 307; D.A. Westbrook, Islamic
Order: A Critique of Contemporary Perestroika and International Law, International Law and Public
Approaches, 1993. 1990; A.Carty/ G.Danilenko (eds), International Law: Separate
171 See Harris CMIL, 21–2; J.W.E.Butler Perestroika and International Law: Expressions of World Order, Virginia
(ed.), International Law and the Current Anglo-Soviet Approaches to JIL 33 (1993), 819–97; F.Malekian,
International System, 1987; International Law, 1990. The Concept of Islamic International
T.Schweisfurth, Das 172 See H.Chun, Chinese Attitudes Criminal Law. A Comparative Study,
Völkergewohnheitsrecht —verstärkt im Toward International Law in the Post- 1994; M.Khadduri, International Law,
Blickfeld der sowjetischen Mao Era, 1978–1987, IL 21 (1987), Islamic, EPIL II (1995), 1236–42. In
Völkerrechtslehre, GYIL 30 (1987), 36; 1127–66; Wang Tieya (1990), op. cit.; 1992 the International Law
Quigley, Perestroika and International Law, R.Heuser, Völkerrechtswissenschaft Association (ILA) established a
AJIL 82 (1988), 788–97; Agora: New und Völkerrechtstheorie in der Committee on Islamic Law within
Thinking by Soviet Scholars,AJIL 83 Volksrepublik China (1979–88), ZaöRV International Law.
(1989), 494–518 (with contributions by 49 (1989), 301–34. 174 B.V.A.Röling, International Law
R.A.Mullerson and I.I.Lukashuk); 173 See, for example, A.A.Ana’im, in an Expanded World, 1960, 15.
E.McWhinney, The ‘New Thinking’ in Islamic Ambivalence to Political
Soviet

Modern Introduction To International Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Introduction To International Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Introduction To International Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the origin of international law according to the text?

What is the origin of international law according to the text?

What are some of the developments mentioned in the new edition of the book?

What are some of the developments mentioned in the new edition of the book?

AKEHURST’S MODERN

‘Professor Malanczuk has written a new edition of Michael Akehurst’s

First published in 1970, A Modern Introduction to International Law

Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law is ideal for

Peter Malanczuk is Professor of International Law at the Law Faculty

Seventh revised edition

London and New York

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

Seventh edition 1997

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

ISBN 0-415-16553-9 (hbk)

809–18; A.T.Y.Serra, Latin America,

The formation of European international law

12 See A.-M.de Zayas, Westphalia,

18 See S.Verosta, Aix-La-Chapelle,

As to your entreaty to send one of your nationals to be accredited

31 Hamsworth, History of the World,

The Western hemisphere

45 M.W.Janis (ed.), The Influence of

46 N.G.Onuf, Civitas Maxima: Wolff,

The theory of sovereignty

48 Wimbledon case, PCIJ, series A,

63 Grewe (1984), op. cit., at 578,

The peaceful settlement of disputes

Humanization of the law of warfare

73 The Institute is a private

87 Text in 225 CTS 188. See E.v.

The League of Nations

Other functions of the League

The Permanent Court of Justice

104 See A.-M.de Zayas, Spanish

Development after the Second World War

The prohibition of the use of force and collective security in

118 B.Broms, Suez Canal, EPIL 12

Attitudes of Third World states towards international law

136 See Chapter 11 below, 164–5.

Universality and the challenge to the unity of international law

146 See Chapter 3 below, 57–8.

158 S.P.Huntington, The Clash of

You might also like