Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T06:14:36.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of the New States on International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

L. C. Green
Get access

Extract

There has been a growing tendency since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 to differentiate general international law from the law of international organization. If one were to accept this bifurcation it would be necessary to deal with the impact of new States under two distinct rubrics. For the purpose of this paper it is more convenient to make no such distinction, but to deal with the effects of the creation of more than fifty new States since the end of the Second World War on international legal relations at large.

One of the paradoxes of international law is that its binding authority rests to a great extent upon the consent of those it purports to bind. This consensual basis of international law finds expression in the judgment of the World Court in the S. S. Lotus:

“The rules of law binding upon States emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims.”

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 1969 , pp. 27 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1927) Series A, No. 10, p. 8 (Hudson, 2 World Court Reports, 23, 35).

2 “International Law” (1896) 12 L.Q.R. 311.

3 I.C.J. Reports 1950, 266, 276.

4 See Cheng, , General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, 1953.Google Scholar

5 Schwarzenberger, , Frontiers of International Law, 1962. Ch. 4Google Scholar; Green, , “General Principles of Law and Human Rights” (1955) 8 Current Legal Problems, 162.Google Scholar

6 13 Feb., 1946, I.C.J. Yearbook 1946–7, 217.

7 27 Jan. 1947, ibid, 219.

8 95 (I), UNYB 1946–7, 254.

9 See Brierly, , The Basis of Obligation in International Law (1955) ch. 1 and 9.Google Scholar

10 (1923) Series B, No. 5, pp. 27–8 (Hudson, I World Court Reports, 191, 204).

11 Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, I.C.J. Reports 1949, 174, 185.

12 I.C.J. Reports 1954, 19, 33.

13 International Law Association Conference, Helsinki, 1966, Doc. IIIA.

14 See, for example, Hyde, , International Law Chiefly as Applied and Interpreted by the United States (1947)Google Scholar; Whiteman, , Digest of International Law, 1963Google Scholar; Smith, , Great Britain and the Law of Nations, 1932–1935Google Scholar; Parry, , British Digest of International Law, 1965Google Scholar; Kiss, , Repertoire Français de Droit International Public, 1962Google Scholar; Castel, , International Law Chiefly as Applied and Interpreted in Canada (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Connell, , International Law in Australia (1966)Google Scholar; Chaudhuri, , International Law—Indian Courts and Legislature (1965)Google Scholar; Khadduri, , The Islamic Law of Nations, 1966Google Scholar; and Institute of Law, Soviet Academy of Sciences, International Law, 196?.

15 U.N., Ways and Means of Making the Evidence of Customary Law More Readily Available, 1949, Doc.Google Scholar A/CN.4/6 (Sales No. 1949. V. 6).

16 U.S.I.S. (London, U.K.), Daily Wireless Bulletin. No. 298, 25 Jan. 1947.

17 Journal of the Security Council. 1st Year, No. 9. p. 145.

18 See, “The United Nations, South West Africa and the World Court” (1967) 7 Indian Journal of Intern. Law, 491, 521.

19 1966.

20 Dickinson, Lowes, The International Anarchy, 1926.Google Scholar See also, Wortley, , Jurisprudence (1967) ch. 8.Google Scholar

21 Lauterpacht, , Recognition in International Law (1947) s. 107Google Scholar; Chen., The International Law of Recognition (1951) ch. 17Google Scholar (“Conditional Recognition”).

22 See, e.g., Asylum Case, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 266.

23 Lauterpacht, , “The So-called Anglo-American and Continental Schools of Thought in International Law” (1931) 12 British Yearbook of Int. Law 31.Google Scholar

24 Hudson, 4 International Legislation, pp. 2279 et seqq. See also Accioly, , Tratado de Derecho International, vol. 1, 1945, pp. 76et seq.Google Scholar

25 Loc. cit., n. 22 above, pp.. 293–94 (italics added).

26 Jacobini, , A Study of the Philosophy of International Law as Seen in Works of Latin American Writers (1954) 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 El derecho internacional hispano-americano, vol. 1, p. 511 (ibid. 124, italics added).

28 This term is here used solely in its economic and non-polemic sense.

29 5th ed., Paris, 1896. vols. I, 350–51, VI, 231, III, 140, 142, 138 (translation by Shea, , The Caho Clause (1955) 17–19).Google Scholar

30 In another place Calvo makes it clear that his remarks apply to any form of intervention: “The form in which intervention takes place does not alter its character. Intervention by way of diplomatic process is still intervention. It is an act of interference, sometimes direct, sometimes disguised, but often nothing but the precursor of armed intervention.” (Vol. I, 267—my translation.)

31 e.g., Mexican Constitution 1917, art. 27 (I), Peaslee, Constitutions of Nations (2nd ed., 1955) vol. 2, at 668.

32 See, e.g., North American Dredging Co. Claim (1926, U.S52./Mexico), 4 U.N. Reports of Int. Arb. Awards, p. 26; Mexican Union Railway Ltd. Claim (1936, U.K./Mexico), 5 ibid., 115.

33 Lipstein, , “The Place of the Calvo Clause in International Law” (1945) 22 British Yearbook of Int. Law 131, 141.Google Scholar

34 See Venezuelan Preferential Claims (1904), P.C.A. No. II (Scott, Hague Court Reports, vol. 1., 56).

35 Note to Argentine Minister in Washington, 29 Dec. 1902 (Moore, , Digest of Int. Law, 1906, vol. 6, 592–93).Google Scholar

36 Convention II, art. 1 (Scott, , Reports to the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1917) 489).Google Scholar

37 Jessup, , A Modern Law of Nations (1948) 114.Google Scholar

38 See Accioly, op. cit., n. 24 above, vol. 1, s. 384, 293–94.

39 6 Hackworth, , Digest of Int. Law 16.Google Scholar

40 Loc cit. n. 22 above.

41 See “Gentlemen's Agreements and the Security Council” (1960) 12 Cur. Legal Prob. 255, 275; “Representation in the Security Council” (1967) 6 Indian Yearbook of Int. Affairs (1967) 48, 49, 58, 73.

42 Art. 24 (2) (52 Amer. J. Int. L. 1958, p. 840).

43 “Territorial Waters and the Onassis Case”, (1955) II The World Today, 1.

44 The Times (London), 4 Dec. 1954.

45 Ibid. 14 Dec. 1954.

46 Uruguayan Blue Book, 1940; 7 Hackworth, op.cit. 450, 509.

47 Loc. cit. n. 22 above, p. 316.

48 Ibid. 294.

49 Op. cit. n. 25 above, vol. 1, s. 7, p. 3.

50 See Reports of Asian African Consultative Legal Committee.

51 See text to n. 26 above.

52 See, e.g., Sloan, , “The Binding Force of a ‘Recommendation’ of the General Assembly of the United Nations” (1948) 25 British Yearbook of Int. Law 1Google Scholar; Johnson, , “The Effect of Resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations” (1955–1956) 32Google Scholaribid. 97; Virally, , “La Valeur juridique des recommendations des organes internationales” (1956) 2 Annuaire Français de Droit International 66Google Scholar; Rajan, , United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction, 1961Google Scholar; Higgins, , The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations (1963) Part IIGoogle Scholar; Asamoah, , The Legal Significance of the Declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 G.A. Res. 217 (III) A (UN, Yearbook on Human Rights, 1948, 466).

54 See, “Human Rights and the Colour Problem” (1950) 3 Current Legal Problems 238, 245–46; Rajan, op. cit., 287–89.

55 Rajan, 271 et seq.

56 Res. 1514 (XV), 14 Dec. 1960 (UNYB I960, p. 49).

57 See The Times, 2, 6, 17 Oct. 1964, 11 Apr. 1965; Sp. Committee, Doc. A/AC.109/SR284, A/AC.109/PV284; GA Res. 2231 (XXI), 20 Dec. 1966, and statement by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (1967) (6 Int. Legal Materials. 830).

58 Res. 1904 (XVIII) 20 Nov. 1963, U.N., Yearbook, Human Rights 1963, (415).

59 Indian Council of World Affairs, India and the United Nations (1957) 107–13, 207–08, 112; Rajan, op. cit., 228–55; GA Res. 44 (I), 8 Dec. 1946.

60 See Hyde, , International Law, 1947, vol. 1, 710Google Scholaret seq.

61 Res. 1803 (XVII), 14 Dec. 1962 (2 Int. Legal Materials, 223). See also Report by Dept. of State to Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “Major Instances of Expropriation” of U.S. nationals] since World War II”, 7 May 1962 (1 ibid. 76).

62 See, in particular, Hamburg, 1960, and Brussels, 1962 (Report, pp. 175, 101, resp.).

63 See Asamoah, op. cit., passim; and Brownlie, , Principles of Public International Law (1966) 11–12.Google Scholar

64 Res. 2200 (XXI), 16 Dec. 1966 (1967, 6 Int. Legal Materials, 360).

65 Vol, 5, p. 38. This view may be contrasted with Nawaz, “The Meaning and Range of the Principle of Self-Determination”: “…self-determination constitutes one of the modern principles of international law” (1965) Duke L.J. 82, 99. (Italics added.)

66 (1963)) 2 Int. Legal Materials, 766. See Boutros-Ghali, , The Addis Ababa Charter, 564 International Conciliation, Jan. 1964.Google Scholar

67 Boutros-Ghali, op. cit., 5.

68 U.N. Charter, Preamble and art. 2 (4).

69 Boutros-Ghali, 39.

70 Ibid. 32.

71 Africa Must Unite (1963) 204.

72 Press Release, Consulate-General of U.A.R., Singapore, 11 Oct. 1964 (italics added).

73 Res. 95 (I), 11 Dec. 1946.

74 YB of Int. Law Comm. 1951, vol. 2, p. 133, as amended 1954, vol. 2, p. 149, art. 2(4), reproduced in Mueller and Wise, , International Criminal Law (1965) 594.Google Scholar

75 Institute of Law, Soviet Academy of Sciences, International Law (196?) 16. “The new, present-day International Law is the law of peaceful co-existence.”

76 GA, Official Records, 17th Session 1962, Agenda Item 75, Annexes; 18th Session 1963, Agenda Item 71, Annexes; Docs. A/5746, 16 Nov. 1964; A/6165, 18 Dec. 1965; A/AC. 125/L.38 and Add. 1–6, Apr. 1966; A/6547, 7 Dec. 1966; A/6799. 26 Sept. 1967.

77 Res. 2181 (XXI), 13 Dec. 1966.

78 Res. 1815 (XVII).

79 I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6. See “South West Africa and the World Court”, 22 International Journal (1966–67) 35, 66; “The United Nations, South West Africa and the World Court” (1967) 7 Indian Journal of Int. Law, 491, 521.

80 (1966) 20 International Organization, 563–64.

81 Chinese Note, 23 Jan. 1959, 8 Sept. 1959 (Indian White Book, I. p. 53, II, p. 27).

82 UNYB 1961, p. 166, (1961) 15 International Organization, 77.

83 The Times, May 2, 1963; Cukwurah, , The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International Law (1967) 104.Google Scholar See also, Brown, , “The Ethiopia-Somaliland Frontier Dispute” (1956) 5 I.C.L.Q. 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 10 ibid. 167.

84 See text to n. 13 above.

85 I.L.A., The Effect of Succession on Treaties, 1965.

86 Schwarzenberger, , International Law, vol. 1 (1957) 176Google Scholaret seq.

87 O'Connell, , The Law of State Succession (1956) 49–50Google Scholar; International Law (1965) vol. 1, p. 427 et seq.

88 McNair, , The Law of Treaties (1961) 655Google Scholar; and I.L.A., op. cit., esp. ch. 11.

89 See, e.g., the arrangements concerning Singapore, Malaya and Malaysia (1966) 4 Canadian Yearbook of Int. Law 3, 21–22, 24.

90 See, e.g., Guyana, n. 13 above, and I.L.A., op. cit. 386–88 (Uganda, Kenya, Malawi resp.).

90a See Degard, , “The Organization of African Unity: An Enquiry into the Plea of Self-Defence as a Justification for the Use of Force in the Eradication of Colonialism” (1967) 16 I.C.L.Q., 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 Doc. A/6547, 7 Dec. 1966, pp. 21, 23–4.

92 Doc. A/6799, 26 Sept. 1967, pp. 60–61.

93 Res. 2131 (XX), 21 Dec. 1965 ((1966) 5 Int. Legal Materials, 374).

94 (1966) 20 International Organization, 323.

95 See Johnson, , Self-Determination within the Community of Nations (1967)Google Scholar, for a study of the role of plebiscites.

96 Doc. A/AC.125//L.38/Add.3, 21 Apr. 1966, p. 13.

97 See text to note 61 above.

98 Loc. cit. note 91, p. 31.

99 Doc. A/6799, p. 83.

100 UNESCO Doc. 14 C/DR 267, 24 Nov. 1966 ((1967) Int. Legal Materials, 188).

101 Doc. A/6799, p. 130.

102 Schwarzenberger, , “Fundamental Principles of International Law” (1955) 87 Hague Recueil 195, 290.Google Scholar

103 Doc. A/6547, p. 33.

104 Ibid.

105 “10. Recognize the legitimacy of the struggle by the peoples under colonial rule to exercise the right to self-determination and independence and invite all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories.”

106 “4 All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.”

107 Declaration on Sovereignty over Natural Resources, Res. 626 (VII).

108 See text to note 62 above.

109 The Times, 28 Oct. 1966, 30 Mar. 1967.

110 Ibid. 3, 4, 20, 24 Jul. 1967.

111 lbid., 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 28 Apr., 3, 5, 9, May, 20 Jul, 10 Nov. 1967, 20 Jan. 1968; The Times Literary Supplement, 29 Jun., 16 Jul. 1967 (vol. 66, pp. 579, 606).

112 Loc. cit. n. 72 above (italics added).

113 42 U.N.T.S., p. 251.

114 e.g., Res. of Sept. 1, 1951, S.C., Official Records, 6th Yr. 558th Meeting, p. 7. See Stone, , Legal Controls of International Conflict (1954) 641–42.Google Scholar

115 The Inge Toft, 31 Int. Law Reports, 251.

116 See “The Double Standard of the United Nations” (1957) 11 Yearbook of World Affairs, 104 et seq.

117 Doc. A/AC.125/1.38/Add.2, 21 Apr. 1966, pp. 28, 37–38 (italics added).

118 It is doubtful, to say the least, whether this is correct since the 1966 South West Africa decision; see Report of 52nd I.L.A. Conference, Helsinki, 298–99.

119 See Friedmann, , The Changing Structure of International Law (1964) 206Google Scholaret seq.

120 Fraternal greetings at 50th I.L.A. Conference, Brussels, Report 12–13.

121 Johnson, op. cit., n. 95 above, p. 204.