No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
My retrospective study, published in the twenty-fifth anniversary volume of this Yearbook, attempted a critical survey of post-war Soviet general theory of international law, and noted the signs of an intellectual changing of the guard and the emergence of a new generation of Soviet international legal theorists. Is it possible today to speak of a post-war U.S. general theory of international law, and, if so, can we speak of a generational change, in the late 1980's, similar to that in the Soviet Union?
1 “Contemporary Soviet General Theory of International Law: Reflections on the Tunkin Era,” 25 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 187–217 (1987).
2 Kennedy, , 26 Harv. Int’lL.J. 361, 366 (1985).Google Scholar
3 D’Amato, , The Concept of Custom in International Law (1971).Google Scholar
4 International Law: Process and Prospect, 124.
5 International Legal Structures, 29.
6 See McWhinney, , “‘Classical’ Sources and the International Law-Making Process of Contemporary International Law,” in Ziccardi, (ed.), Le droit international à l’heure de sa codification: Études en l’honneur de Roberto Ago, vol. 1, at 341 (1987)Google Scholar; and, more generally, United Nations Law Making (1984),0115. 3 and 4).