1 E. MeWhinney, in 61 A.J.I.L. 237 (1967).

2 B. A. Ramundo, Peaceful Coexistence: International Law in the Building of Communism 139 (1967).

3 T. A. Korovin in International Law (Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.) 16; G. Tunkin, Droit International Public 19-21 (1965).

4 N. S. Khrushchev, Speech at the Plenary Meeting of the CCCP, June 21, 1963, quoted in the American Bar Association's Peaceful Coexistence: A Communist Blueprint for Victory 20 (1964).

5 Korovin, loc. cit.

6 Loc. cit.

7 U N. General Assembly, Res. 1966 (XVIII). See also G. W. Haight in 1 The International Lawyer 96 ff. (1966), for a useful discussion of the work of this Committee.

8 1963 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 72.

9 Peaceful Coexistence: A Communist Blueprint for Victory 14.

10 Cf. Crane, Robert D. “Soviet Atcitude toward International Space Law,” 56 A.J.I.L. 685 at 698–699 (1962)Google Scholar

11 See Hazard in 61 A.J.I.L. 232 (1967). Tankin (Droit Int. Public 119 ff. (1965)), takes the position that the general principles of law referred to in Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice are general principles as laid down in treaty and custom; to construe the principles of Art. 38 as those applied by nation states in foro domestico would, in his view, impose Western values on non-Western states. Such a concept (whose thrust some of the newly independent nations of Africa have found appealing) not only ignores the intent of the learned draftsmen of the Statute, but its consequence is to deprive par. (c) of Art. 38 of any meaning in view of the weight of its first two paragraphs. It also raises an interesting question as to whether the Soviet Union is free to repeal part of a Statute to which it became a party when it accepted the Charter of the United Nations.

12 E. Kamenka, ‘’ The Soviet View of Law,'’ in Problems of Communism, March-April, 1965, p. 8.

13 Lipson in 29 Law and Contemporary Problems 877 (1964); also in TJ. S. Dept. of State External Research Paper 156 (May, 1964), p. 2, a report on the symposium concerning Soviet Impact on International Law at Duke University, Feb. 28-29, 1964.

14 E. McWhinney, The Legal Principles Governing Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States 80 (1966).

15 Report of the U. S. Delegation to the IT. N. Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, Mexico City, Aug. 27-Oct. 2, 1964, p. 28.

16 Separation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 174; 43 A.J.I.L. 589 (1949).

17 U.N. Doc. A/AC.125/SB.6 at 11, italics supplied; see also Haight, loc. cit. 106. For a refutation of this doctrine see Giraud in 110 Hague Academy, Reeueil des Cours 699 (1963).

18 “ It is one thing to argue that there is no agreement on the principle of just compensation on the basis of the well-known Mexican and Russian denials of the requirement of compensation made before World War II. It is quite another to argue that the principle does not exist in the face of the … 90 agreements, concluded since WorldWar II which … do not repudiate the principle of compensation even if they do not always expressly recognize it. If practice means anything in international law, the evidence in this case seems to be conclusive.” J. M. Sweeney, “Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States and the Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens,” 16 Syracuse Law Review 762 at 769 (1965).

19 Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., International Law 130-131

20 Tunkin, op. cit. 202-222, passim.

21 Ramundo, op. cit. 127, quoting D. B. Levin, Ob Otvetstvennosti Gosudarstv v Sovremennom Mezhdunarodnom Prave (The Responsibility of States under Contemporary International Law), Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo No. 5 (1966), pp. 75 ff.

22 Baxter, R. R., “Codification in Light of the International Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens,” 16 Syracuse Law Review 745–746 (1965).Google Scholar

23 E.g., the efforts of the League of Nations Preparatory Committee for the Codification of International Law, the Harvard Research in International Law Draft Convention on Responsibility of States (1929) and the later Harvard Draft Convention and Report on Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens, March 1, 1959; as well as the Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on the Contribution of the American Continent to the Principles of International Law that Govern the Responsibility of the State, OEA/Ser.i/VI.2, CIJ-61 (English), 1962

24 Compare K. S. Carlston in 54 Northwestern University Law Review 405 at 427 (1959).

25 Cf. McDougal and Feliciano, Law and Minimum World Public Order 131-135 (1961).

26 This spurious doctrine has been invoked by spokesmen for some of the newly independent countries of Africa. Cf. 1967 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 20-22.

27 Op. cit. 128, adding, “ In this area as in others, the Soviets rely upon their own characterization of a situation to determine the legalities involved.“

28 This flexible approach has been described as an ambivalent effort to limit use of the right by capitalist states, while expanding it to accommodate the needs of the Soviet Union. “ Nonsocialist” use of self-defense is restricted by subordinating it to the law of peaceful coexistence under the United Nations Charter. Op. cit. 131.

29 Ramundo, op. cit. 138-139.

30 Cf. United States Department of the Army, The Law of Land Warfare, Basic Field Manual 27-10 (1956), pars. 35-38.

31 See the Hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (84th Cong., 1st Sess.) on Exec. D, E, F and G (82nd Cong., 1st Sess.), p. 22, and Supp. to Exec. D, E, F and G. Text of reservation in 47 A.J.I.L. Supp. 177 (1953).

32 U.N. Doc. A/Res/2131 (XX), Dec. 21, 1965; 60 A.J.I.L. 662 (1966).

33 (7/. Bishop, International Law, Cases and Materials 864 (1962).

34 Agreement of Nov. 25, 1967, 7 Int. Legal Materials 144 (1968).