9. PREFACE
The present seventh edition takes into account the changes and
developments that have occurred since the date (January 1967)
when the manuscript of the sixth edition was completed. The
object remains, as before, to present an introduction to inter-
national law, not full or complete or exhaustive, but one
containing the fundamentals needed by those
(a) who are preparing to deal with the subject in actual
practice; or
(b) who, for some purpose or other, require a working
knowledge of it.
At the same time, within the limitations of these purposes,
every endeavour has been made to ensure that the treatment is
up to date.
The new multilateral Treaties and Conventions, calling for
treatment in the present edition, include such important law-
making instruments as the Vienna Convention of 1969 on the
Law of Treaties, the Convention of 1969 on Special Missions,
the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, the
Treaty of 1971 on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of
Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on
the Seabed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, the
two Brussels Conventions of 1969 relating respectively to
Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Oil Pollution Casual-
ties, and Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, the Hague
Convention of 1970 on the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure
of Aircraft (Hijacking), the Agreement of 1968 on the Rescue of
Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the Return of
Objects Launched into Outer Space, and the Draft Conven-
tion on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space
Objects, adopted in June, 1971, by the Legal Sub-Committee of
the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space. Additions of such magnitude to the corpus of inter-
national law in so short a period are without parallel in its
previous history. It is paradoxical that this has occurred at a
vii
10. viii Preface
time when violence and instability appear to prevail to an
equally unprecedented degree throughout the world.
Apart from Treaties and Conventions, there have been a
number of important decisions, including those of the Inter-
national Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf
Cases (1969), the Barcelona Traction Case (1970), and the
Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences for States of the
Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia {South West
Africa) (1971).
Also, the law of the sea, seabed, and ocean floor stands on the
threshold of a complete recasting of its principles. A Con-
ference has been convened for the year 1973, and it is apparent
that the four Geneva Conventions of 1958 on the Law of the
Sea are no longer necessarily sacrosanct. Accordingly, the
subject has had to be treated in the context of this trend towards
basic revision.
A number of new matters receive attention in the present
edition. A short chapter. Chapter 13, has been added to deal
with the subject of Development and the Environment; the
concept of opposability in international law is treated for the
first time; and the status of "micro-States" is discussed.
Some opinions previously expressed have also been revised or
reformulated.
International law is now facing what, to employ current
jargon, is best described as a crisis of identity. As Dr. Edvard
Hambro, President of the Twenty-fifth Session of the United
Nations General Assembly in 1970, said in his address at the
opening of the Session :
—
" The fragmentary international society of yesterday is
obsolete. We are now in a stage of transition, and we look
forward to the integrated community of tomorrow.
" The future organisation of international society must be
based on agreed and accepted procedures for dealing with
international disputes, under more effective rules of inter-
national law. Only thus can we protect the rights and the
human dignity of every person, regulate international commerce
and communications, ensure economic development and
improve social conditions in all countries."
November 1971
12. X Contents
Chapter 6. Recognition (contd.) Page
S. 5. New Territorial Titles, Territorial Changes,
and Treaties; Non-Recognition.
.
168
Chapter 7. State Territorial Sovereignty and other
Lesser Rights of States .
.
172
S. 1. Territorial Sovereignty and other Lesser
Rights 172
S. 2. Parts of State Territory or other areas in
which Sovereign Rights are Exercised by
States 204
S. 3. Servitudes 239
PART 3. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES
Chapter 8. Jurisdiction 242
S. 1 . General Observations . . .
.
242
S. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction .
.
243
S. 3, Personal Jurisdiction . . . . .
.
273
S. 4. Jurisdiction According to the Protective
Principle ..115
S. 5. Jurisdiction on the High Seas . . .
,
276
S. 6. Jurisdiction According to the Universal
Principle : Piracy 284
S. 7. Problems of Jurisdiction with regard to
Aircraft 288
Chapter 9. State Responsibility 293
S. 1 . Nature and Kinds of State Responsibility 293
S. 2. Responsibility for Breach of Treaty or
in respect of Contractual Obligations;
Expropriation of Property 296
S. 3. Responsibility for International Delin-
quencies (Wrongs Unconnected with
Contractual Obligations) . . . . 302
S. 4. Claims 312
Chapter 10. Succession to Rights and Obligations . . 320
S. 1. Succession in General . . .
.
320
S. 2. Passing of Rights and Obligations upon
External Changes of Sovereignty over
Territory 322
S. 3. Passing of Rights and Obligations upon
Internal Changes of Sovereignty . . 333
Chapter 11. The State and the Individual .. 336
S. 1. Nationality 336
S. 2. Rights and Duties of States with regard to
AUens . . . . . . . . .
.
344
S. 3. Extradition, Rendition and Asylum .
.
348
S. 4. Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 357
13. Contents xi
Page
Chapter 12. The State and Economic Interests—Inter-
national Economic and Monetary Law 365
Chapter 13. Development and the Environment .. 374
S. 1. General 374
S. 2. Development 375
S. 3. Protection and Improvement of the Human
Environment 378
PART 4. INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Chapter 14. The Agents of International Business ;
Diplomatic Envoys, Consuls, and other
Representatives 384
S. 1. Diplomatic Envoys 384
S. 2. Consuls 390
S. 3. Special Missions of a Non-Permanent
Nature 393
S. 4. Other Categories of Representatives and
Agents 395
Chapter 15. The Law and Practice as to Treaties .
.
397
S. 1. Nature and Functions of Treaties .. 397
S. 2. Forms and Terminology 400
S. 3. Parties to Treaties 406
S. 4. Practice as to Conclusion and Entry into
Force of Treaties 409
S. 5. Reservations 428
S. 6. Revision and Amendment of Treaties .
.
434
S. 7. Inconsistent Treaties; and Validity and
Duration of Treaties 437
S. 8. Interpretation of Treaties 445
PART 5. DISPUTES AND HOSTILE RELATIONS
(INCLUDING WAR AND NEUTRALITY)
Chapter 16. International Disputes 451
S. 1. General 451
S. 2. Peaceful or Amicable Means of Settlement 452
S. 3, Forcible or Coercive Means of Settlement 482
14. xii Contents
Page
Chapter 17. War, Armed Conflicts and Other Hostile
Relations 489
S. 1. General 489
S. 2. Effects of Outbreak of War and of Armed
Conflicts 504
S. 3. The "Laws of War" 516
S. 4. Modes of Terminating War and Hostilities 529
Chapter 18. Neutrality and Quasi-Neutrality .. .. 534
S. 1. General 534
S. 2. Rights and Duties in General of
(a) Neutrals, and (b) Quasi-Neutrals . . 541
S. 3. Economic Warfare and Blockade: Impact
upon (a) Neutrals, and {b) Quasi-
Neutrals 546
PART 6. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Chapter 19. International Institutions 561
S. 1. Their Status and Functions as Subjects of
International Law 561
S. 2. General Legal Nature and Constitutional
Structure .
.
S. 3 Privileges and Immunities
S. 4. Legislative Functions of International
Institutions
S. 5. International Administrative Law
S. 6. Quasi-Diplomatic and Treaty Relations of
International Institutions
S. 7. Dissolution of International Institutions;
and Succession to Rights, Duties and
Functions
S. 8. The United Nations
S. 9. The International Labour Organisation
and other " Related Agencies
"
Note on Bibliography
566
582
586
587
588
590
592
623
628
INDEX
15. TABLE OF CASES
Adamsv. Adams, [1971] p. 188; [1970] 3 Ail E. R. 572; [1970] 3 W. L. R.
934: 114 Sol. Jo. 605; Digest Cont. Vol. C 283, 3822a .. 159, 163
Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on South-West
Africa, I.C.J. Reports (1956), 23 592
Aerial Incident of July 27, 1955, Case (Preliminary Objections), I.C.J.
Reports (1959), 127 464
Afghan Minister (Consular Activities) Case (1932), Annual Digest of
Public International Law Cases, 1931-1932, 328 264
Aksionairnoye Obschestvo A. M. Luther v. Sagor (James) & Co., [1921]
3 K. B. 532; 90 L. J. K. B. 1202; [1921] All E. R. Rep. 138; 125 L. T.
705; 37 T. L. R. 777; 65 Sol. Jo. 604, C.A.; 11 Digest (Repl.) 325, 19: 145,
154, 156, 157, 164
Alabama Claims Arbitration (1872) .. ..12,53,453,454,535,542
Alaska Boundary Arbitration (1903) 205
Amand, /?e, [1941] 2 K. B. 239; 110 L. J. K. B. 524; 22 Digest (Repl.)
614, 7087 270
Ambatielos Arbitration (1956), American Journal of International Law
(1956), Vol. 50 pp. 674-679 309
Ambatielos Case, I.C.J. Reports (1952), 28 450
AmbroseLight, The(1885), 25 Fed. 408 165,288
Amkor Corporation v. Bank of Korea (1969), 298 F. Supp. 143 . . 255
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. v. Idemitzu Kosan Kabushiki Kaisha International
Law Reports (1953), 305 297
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (Jurisdiction), I. C. J. Reports (1952), 93 . . 297,
399, 462, 468
Interim Order (1951) 468
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., Ltd. v. Jaffrate, [1953] I.W.L.R. 246; 97 Sol. Jo.
81 ; Digest Cont. Vol. A 266, 498a 298
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, I. C. J. Reports (1951), 116 . . 51, 98, 176,
216, 217, 222, 475
Anna, The (1805), 5 Ch. Rob. 373; 1 Eng. Pr. Cas. 499; 37 Digest
(Repl.) 479, 292 214
Annette, The, [1919] P. 105; 88 L. J. P. 107; 22 Digest (Repl.) 144, 1302: 163
Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of
Infants Case (Netherlands-Sweden), I. C. J. Reports (1958), 55 . . 448
Arab Bank, Ltd. v. Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas),
[1953] 2 Q. B. 527; [1953] 2 All E. R. 263; [1953] 3 W. L. R. 67;
97 Sol. Jo. 420; affirmed, [1954] A. C. 495; [1954] 2 All E. R. 226;
[1954] 2 W. L. R. 1022; 104 L. Jo. 344; 127 L. T. Jo. 259; 98 Sol.
Jo. 350, H. L.; 2 Digest (Repl.) 223, J-^i 510
Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A. C. 256; [1939] 1 All E. R. 719; 160
L. T. 513; sub nom. Spain Republic Government v, Arantzazu
Mendi, 108 L. J. P. 55; 55 T. L. R. 454; 19 Asp. M. L. C. 263;
83 Sol. Jo. 356, H. L.; 1 Digest (Repl.) 129, 155 . . 88, 156, 157, 163
Arbitral Award of the King of Spain Case, I. C. J. Reports (1960), 192 . . 475
Arbitration between Petroleum Development, Ltd., and Sheikh of Abu
Dhabi(1953),American Journal of International Law, Vol. 47, 156-9: 226
Arcaya v. Paez (1956), 145 F. Supp. 464 264
Argentina-Chile Boundary Arbitration (1965-6) 36, 205, 458
xiii
16. xiv Table of Cases
PAOB
Argento V. Horn (1957), 241 F. (2d) 258 509
Argoud Case (1963-4) 108
Armah v. Government of Ghana, [1966] 3 All E. R. 177; [1966] 3
W. L. R. 828 ; 1 10 Sol. Jo. 890, H. L. ; Digest Cont. Vol. B 296, 7.57a 352
Asylum Case, I. C. J. Reports (1950), 266 ..4,40,41,354,356
A.-G. for Canada v. A.-G. for Ontario, [1937] A. C. 326; 106 L. J. P. C.
72; 156 L. T. 302; 53 T. L. R. 325; 81 Sol. Jo. 116, P. C; 8 Digest
(Repl.) 716, 191 90
Austria (Emperor) v. Day and Kossuth (1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 217; 30
L. J. Ch. 690; 4 L. T. 494; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 639; 9 W. R. 712; 28
Digest (Repl.) 862, 920 85
B
Baccus S. R. L. v. Servicio Nacional del Trigo, [1957] 1 Q. B. 438;
[1956] 3 All E. R. 715; [1956] 3 W. L. R. 948; 100 Sol. Jo. 872; [1956]
2 Lloyd's Rep. 448, C. A.; 1 Digest (Repl.) 55, 412 .. 257, 258
Banco de BUbao v. Rey, [1938] 2 K. B. 176; [1938] 2 All E. R. 253;
107 L. J. K. B. 681; 159 L. T. 369; 54 T. L. R. 603; 82 Sol. Jo.
254, C. A.; 11 Digest (Repl.) 612, ^20 158. 163
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First National City Bank of New York
(1970), 431 F. (2d) 394 118
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), 376 U. S. 398 . . . . 118
Bank of Ethiopia v. National Bank of Egypt and Liguori, [1937] Ch. 513;
[1937]3 AllE. R. 8; 106 L. J. Ch. 279; 157L. T. 428; 53 T. L. R.
751; 81 Sol. Jo. 479; 11 Digest (Repl.) 612,419 . . 156, 158, 160, 164
Bank of Toronto v. Lambe (1887), 12 App. Cas. 575; 56 L. J. P. C. 87;
57 L. T. 377; 3 T. L. R, 742, P. C; 8 Digest (Repl.) 725, 214 . . 244
Bank Voor Handel en Scheepvaart.N.V. V.Kennedy (1961); 288F.(2d)375: 92
Barbuit's Case (1737), Cas. temp. Talb. 281 ; 11 Digest (Repl.) 634, 582 . . 85
Barcelona Traction Case. Preliminary Objections, I. C. J. Reports
(1964), 6 36
Barcelona Traction Case, Light and Power Co., Ltd. (Second Phase),
I. C. J. Reports (1970), 3 35, 97, 314, 344, 368, 473
Bathori, The, [1934] A. C. 91; 103 L. J. P. C. 25; 150 L. T. 221; 50
T. L. R. 102; 18 Asp. M. L. C. 458, P. C; 37 Digest (Repl.) 545,
1123 313
Behring Sea Fisheries Arbitration (1893) .. .. .. 53
Belgian Languages Case . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Bentzon V. Boyle (1815), 9 Cranch 191 52
Berlin, The, [1914] P. 265; 84 L. J. P. 42; 112 L. T. 259; 31 T. L. R.
38; 59 Sol. Jo. 59; 12 Asp. M. L. C. 607; 37 Digest (Repl.) 485,
346 84
Bevan v. Bevan, [1955] 2 Q. B. 227; [1955] 2 All E. R. 206; [1955] 2 W. L. R.
948;99Sol. Jo. 306; 2 Digest (Repl.) 266, 60i 510
Biswambhar v. State of Orissa A. 1957, Orissa 247 94
Blackwood v. R. (1882) 8 App. Cas. 82; 52 L. J. P. C. 10; 48 L. T.
441 ; 31 W. R. 645, P. C; 11 Digest (Repl.) 385, 458 . . 244
Board of Trade v. Owen, [1957] A. C. 602; [1957] 1 All E. R. 411 ; [1957]
2 W. L. R. 351; 12 1. J. P. 177; 101 Sol. Jo. 186; 41 Cr. App. Rep. 11,
H. L.; Digest Cont. Vol. A 452, 72, 555a 242,249
Bonser v. La Macchia, [1969] A. L. R. 741 ; Digest Cont. Vol. C 384, 13a 218
Brown, Robert E., Claim (1925), American Journal of International
Law. Vol. 19, at pp. 193 e/je^. 332
Burnet v. Brooks (1933), 288 U. S. 378 346
17. Table of Cases xv
PAOB
C
C. (An infant), Re, [1959] Ch. 363; [1958] 2 All E. R. 656; [1958] 3 W. L. R.
309; 102 Sol. Jo. 582; Digest Cont. Vol. A 266, 525a .. ..260
Calvin's Case (1608), 7 Co. Rep. la; Jenk. 306; 2 State Tr. 559; sub
nom. Union of Scotland and England Case, Moore K. B. 790; 11
Digest (Repl.) 560, 2 338
Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler, Ltd. (No. 2), [1966] 2 All E. R.
536; [1966] 3 W. L. R. 125; 110 Sol. Jo. 425, H. L. ; Digest Cont. Vol.
Bl, 383A 102, 148, 154, 155, 159, 162, 163
CaroUne Case (1837) 503
Carrick v. Hancock (1895), 12 T. L. R. 59; 40 Sol. Jo. 157; 11 Digest (Repl.)
506, /2i7 244
Cartolari v. Sovereign Order of Malta, Annali di Diritto Internazionale
(1951), Vol. IX, 153 73
Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (Cambodia-
Thailand). See Temple of Preah Vihear (Case Concerning) (Merits)
(Cambodia-Thailand),
Castioni, Re, [1891] 1 Q. B. 149; 60 L. J. M. C. 22; 64 L. T. 344;
55 J. P. 328; 39 W. R. 202; 7 T. L. R. 50; 17 Cox, C. C. 225;
24 Digest (Repl.) 993, 55 352
Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17 Paragraph 2 of the
Charter), I. C. J. Reports (1952), 151 . . . . 472, 582, 614, 618
Charkieh, The (1873), L. R. 4 A. & E. 59; 42 L. J. Adm. 17; 28 L. T.
513 ; 1 Asp. M. L. C. 581 ; 1 Digest (Repl.) 51,418 123
Charming Betsy, The (1804), 2 Cranch 64; 2 L. Ed. 208 .
.
20, 91
Chattin Claim (1927) American Journal of International Law (1928),
Vol. 22, p. 667 307
Cherokee Tobacco Co. v. The U.S. (1870), 1 1 WaU 616 93
China Republic v. Merchants' Fire Assurance Corpn. of New York (1929),
30 F (2d) 278 147
Chinn, Oscar, Case (1934), P. C. I. J., Ser. A/B, No. 63 . . . . 347, 367
Chorzow Factory Case (1928), P. C. I. J., Ser. A, No. 17: 36, 296, 299, 318,
319
Chow Hung Ching v. R., [1949] A. L. R. 29; 77 C. L. R. 449; 22 A. L. J.
607 87,89,270,271
Chung Chi Cheung v. R., [1939] A. C. 160; [1938] 4 All E. R. 786;
108 L. J. P. C. 17; 160 L. T. 148; 55 T. L. R. 184; 83 Sol. Jo. 72;
14 Digest (Repl.) 154, /i^'^ 84,86,265,266
Civil Air Transport Incorporated v. Central Air Transport Corpn.,
[1953] A. C. 70; [1952] 2 All E. R. 733; [1952] 2 T. L. R. 621;
[1952] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 259, P. C; 11 Digest (Repl.) 624, 497: 152, 157,
158, 164, 165
Civilian War Claimants Association, Ltd. v. R,, [1932] A. C. 14; 101
L. J. K. B. 105; [1931] All E. R. Rep. 432; 146 L. T. 169; 48 T. L. R.
83; 75 Sol. Jo. 813, H. L.; 1 Digest (Repl.) 322, 93 64
Claims against Hawaii (1899), Opinions of Attorneys-General, Vol. 22,
pp. 583 et seq 323
Clipperton Island Arbitration (1931), American Journal of International
Law (1932), Vol. 26, 390 176
Collco Dealings, Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1962] A. C. I.;
[1961] 1 All E. R. 762; [1961] 2 W. L. R. 401; 105 Sol. Jo. 230; 39
T.C. 509; L.(T. C.) 1968; [1961] T. R. 13, 40 A.T.C. 13, H. L.;
Digest Cont. Vol. A 899, 1350b 21, 88, 90
Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case (1950), I. C. J. Reports (1950), 266: 4,
40,41
18. xvi Table of Cases
Commercial and Estates Co. of Egypt v. Board of Trade, [1925] 1 K. B.
271; 94 L. J. K. B. 50; 132 L. T. 516, C. A.; 11 Digest (Repl.)
619,^65 78
Compania de Transportes Mar Caribe, S. A. v. M./T. Mar Caribe (1961),
American Journal of International Law, Vol. 55, p. 749 . . 152
Compania Naviera Vascongado v. Cristina S.S., [1938] A. C. 485;
[1938] 1 All E. R. 179; 107 L. J. P. 1 ; 159 L. T. 394; 54 T. L. R.
512; 82 Sol. Jo. 253; 19 Asp. M. L. C. 159; sub nom. The Cristina,
54 T. L. R. 512; 82 Sol. Jo. 253, H. L. ; 1 Digest (Repl.) 129, 154: 87, 243,
254, 255, 256, 258, 267, 268
Conditions of Membership in the United Nations I. C. J. Reports (1948),
61 et seq 149, 475, 598, 599
Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Government
Maritime Consultative Organisation, I. C. J. Reports (1960), 150 . . 447
Cook V. Sprigg, [1899] A. C. 572; 68 L. J. P. C. 144; 81 L. T. 281; 15
T. L. R. 515, P. C; 8 Digest (Repl.) 794, 518 88
Cook V. United States (1933), 288 U. S. 102 93
Cooper V. Stuart (1889), 14 App. Cas. 286; 58 L. J. P. C. 93; 60 L. T.
875; 5 T. L. R. 387; 8 Digest (Repl.) 765, 324 180
Corfu Channel (Assessment) Case, I.C.J. Reports (1949), 244 .. ..319
Corfus Channel (Merits) Case, I. C. J. Reports (1949), 4: 108, 120, 218, 221,
474, 484
Corfu Channel (Preliminary Objection) Case, I. C. J. Reports (1948),
15 462,467
Corocraft, Ltd. v. Pan American Airways, [1969] 1 Q. B. at p. 641 ; [1968]
1 All E. R. 82; [1968] 3 W. L. R. 1273; 112 Sol. Jo. 903; [1968]
2 Lloyd's Rep. 459, C. A.; Digest Cont. Vol. C 77, 35b . . .. 88
Costa Rica Packet Arbitration (1891) 246
Costello Case, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases,
1929-1930,188-9 338
Cristina, The. See Compania Naviera Vascongado v. Cristina S.S.
Croft V. Dunphy, [1933] A. C. 156; 102 L. J. P. C. 6; 148 L. T. 62; 48
T. L. R. 652; 18 Asp. M. L. C. 370; 8 Digest (Repl.) 712, 172 . . 86
Cunard S.S. Co. V. Mellon (1923), 262 U.S. 100 .. 246
Customs Regime between Germany and Austria, Pub. P. C. I. J. (1931)
Ser. A/B, No. 41 474
Cutting Case (1887), Moore's Digest of International Law (1906), II,
228 252,274,308
D
Daimler Co., Ltd. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Gt. Britain), Ltd.,
[1916] 2 A. C. 307; 85 L. J. K. B. 1333: 114L. T. 1049; 32 T. L. R.
624; 60 Sol. Jo. 602; 22 Com. Cas. 32, H. L.; 2 Digest (Repl.) 219,
315 506, 507
Danzig Railway Officials Case (1928), P. C. I. J., Ser. B., No. 15 . . 65
De Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappi (N.V.) v. War Damage Commission
(1957), American Journal of International Law, Vol. 51, 802 . . 511
De Becker Case, Yearbook of European Convention on Human Rights,
1962(1963), 320-337 362
De Jager v. A.-G. of Natal, [1907] A. C. 326; 76 L. J. P. C. 62; 96
L. T. 857; 23 T. L. T. 516, P. C; 15 Digest (Repl.) 766, 7055 . . 347
De Wutz V. Hendricks (1824), 2 Bing. 314; 9 Moore, C. P. 586; 2 State
Tr. (N. S.) 125; sub nom. De Witts v. Hendricks, 3 L. J. (O. S.)
C. P. 3; 11 Digest (Repl.) 613, '/2J 85
19. Table of Cases xvii
PAOB
Dickinson v. Del Solar, [1930] 1 K. B. 376; 99 L. J. K. B. 162; 142
L. T. 66; 45 T. L. R. 637; 1 1 Digest (Repl.) 635, 595 .. .. 262
Direct United States Cable Co. v. Anglo-American Telegraph Co. (1877),
2 App. Cas. 394; 46 L. J. P. C. 71 ; 36 L. T. 265, P. C; 8 Digest
(Rep!.) 700, 97 222
Diversion of Water from the Meuse Case. See Meuse Diversion of
Water Case.
Djevahirdjhian v. Germany, Annual Digest of Public International Law
Cases, 1927-1928, 310 338
Dolder v. Huntingfield (Lord) (1805), 11 Ves. 283; 22 Digest (Repl.)
142, 1284 85
Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines v. Janson, [1900] 2 Q. B. 339; 69
L. J. Q. B. 771; 83 L. T. 79; 48 W. R. 619; 16 T. L. R. 438; 44
Sol. Jo. 516; 5 Com. Cas. 296; on appeal, [1901] 2 K. B. 419; 70
L. J. K. B. 881 ; 49 W. R. 660; 85 L. T. 104; 17 T. L. R. 604; 6 Com.
Cas. 198, C. A.; affirmed sub nom. Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated
Mines, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 484; 71 L. J. K. B. 857; 87 L. T. 372; 51
W. R. 142; 18 T. L. R. 796; 7 Com. Cas. 268, H. L.; 29 Digest (Repl.)
184, 1234 490, 507
DrummondWren,/?^, [1945]4 0. R. 778; [1945]4D. L. R. 674.. .. 363
Duberg's Case (1955). See L C. J. Reports (1956), 77 580
Duff" Development Co. v. Kelantan Government, [1924] A. C. 797; 93
L. J. Ch. 243; 131 L. T. 676; 40 T. L. R. 566; 68 Sol. Jo. 559,
H. L.; 22 Digest (Repl.) 143, i29i 123,161,258
E
Eastern Carelia Case (1923), P. C. L J., Ser. B, No. 5 . . . . 106, 472
Eastern Greenland Case (1933), P. C. L J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 . . 175, 401
Effect of Awards made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
(Advisory Opinion), L C. J. Reports (1954), 47 568
Eichmann Case (1961) 108, 284
Eliza Ann, The (1813), 1 Dods. 244; 11 Digest (Repl.) 638, 617 . . .. 417
El Oro Mining and Railway Co., Ltd., Annual Digest of Public Inter-
national Law Cases, 1931-1932, No. 100 300
Engelke v. Musmann, [1928] A. C. 433; 97 L. J. K. B. 789; 139 L. T.
586; 44T.L.R. 731, H.L.; 11 Digest (Repl.) 631, J'/J .. 88,261,
262, 264, 393
Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations (1925), P. C. I. J., Ser. B.,
No. 10 96
Exemption of U.S. Forces from Canadian Criminal Law, Re, [1943] 4
D. L. R. 11 271
F
Factor v. Laubenheimer (1933), 290 U. S. 276 353
Feival Pikelny Case, British Year Book of International Law, 1955-1956,
pp. 288-295 163
Fenton Textile Association v. Krassin (1921), 38 T. L. R. 259, C. A.;
1 1 Digest (Repl.) 629, 575 158
Finnish Ships Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . 96
Fisheries Case. See Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case.
Rorence Strunsky Merge Case (1955), American Journal of International
Law(1956), Vol. 50, 154 316
Flota Maritima Browning De Cuba, S. A. v. The Canadian Conqueror
(1962), 34 D. L. R. (2d) 628 268
20. xviii Table of Cases
PAOB
Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) (N. Y.) 13 S. Ct. 1016; 149 U. S. 698;
345
250
140L.T. 479;
21
91
37 L. Ed. 905
Ford V. The United States (1927), 273 U. S. 593
Foster v. Driscoll, [1929] 1 K. B. 470; 98 L. J. K. B. 282;
45 T. L. R. 185, C.A.; 11 Digest (Repl.) 441, 832
Foster v, Neilson (1829), 2 Pet. 253
Francis v. R., [1956] S. C. R. 618; 3 D. L. R. (2d) 641 ; 56 D. T. C. 1077: 90
Franciska, The (1855), 2 Ecc. & Ad. 113; Spinks 111; reversed sub nom.
Northcote v. Douglas, The Franciska, 10 Moo. P. C. C. 37; Spinks
287; 8 State Tr. N. S. 349; 26 L. T. O. S. 153; 4 W. R. 100; 2 Eng.
Pr. Cas. 346; 37 Digest (Repl.) 509, 688 557
Franconia, The. See R. v. Keyn.
Free Zones of Gex and Savoy, Case of
P. C. I. J., Ser. A, No. 24 (1930) 473
P. C. I. J., Ser. A/B, No. 46 (1932) 326, 406, 442
French v. Banco Nacional de Cuba (1968), 295 N. Y. S. (2d) 433 . . 118
Frontier between Turkey and Iraq (1925), Pub. P. C. I. J. Ser. B. No. 12: 474
Frontier Lands Case (Belgium-Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports (1959) 209: 172,
182, 205
Gagara, The, [1919] P. 95; 88 L. J. P. 101 ; 122 L. T. 498; 35 T. L. R.
259; 63 Sol. Jo. 301; 14 Asp. M. L. C. 547, C. A.; 1 Digest (Repi.)
130,755 148
Gdynia Ameryka Linie Zeglugowe Spolka Akcyjna v. Boguslawski, [1953]
A.C. 11; [1952] 2 All E.R. 470; [1952] 2T. L. R. 317; 96 Sol. Jo.
530; [1952] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 57, H. L.; 11 Digest (Repl.) 625, 499
163, 164
Geipel v. Smith (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 404; 41 L. J. Q. B. 153; 26 L. T.
361 ; 20 W. R. 332; 1 Asp. M. L. C. 268; 12 Digest (Repl.) 418, 3245: 557
Genocide Convention, Reservations to the, L C. J. Reports (1951), 15: 431, 472
German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia Case (1926), P. C. L J., Series A,
No. 7 323
German Settlers in Poland. See Settlers of German Origin, etc.
Gex and Savoy, Free Zones of. Case of
P. C. L J.. Ser. A, No. 24 (1930) 473
P. C. L J., Ser. A/B, No. 46 (1932) 326, 406, 442
Ghosh V. D'Rozario, [1963] 1 Q. B. 106; [1962] 2 All E. R. 640; [1962]
3 W. L. R. 405; 106 Sol. Jo. 352, C. A.; Digest Cont. Vol. A 267,
536a 259
Greek and Turkish Populations, Exchange of (1925), P. C. L J., Ser. B,
No. 10 96
Grotrian, Re, Cox v. Grotrian, [1955] Ch. 501; [1955] 1 All E. R. 788;
[1955] 2 W. L. R. 695; 99 Sol. Jo. 220; Digest Cont. Vol. A 267,
6l9a 530
Gschwind v. Swiss Confederation, Annual Digest of Public International
Law Cases, 1931-1932, No. 120 312
Gugliormella v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, (1954), 122 F. Supp.
246 493
H
Hahn v. PubUc Trustee, [1925] Ch. 715; 95 L. J. Ch. 9; 133 L. T. 713;
14 T. L. R. 586; 69 Sol. Jo. 825; 2 Digest (Repl.) 203, 214 . . . . 341
21. Table of Cases xix
PAGE
Haile Selassie v. Cable and Wireless Co., Ltd. (No. 2) (1938), 54 T. L. R.
1087; reversed, [1939] Ch. 182; 108 L. J. Ch. 190; 160 L. T. 120;
55T.L.R. 209; 82 Sol. Jo. 990, C. A.; 1 Digest (Repl.) 50, i72 .. 158
Harris v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (1953) 580
Hawaiian Claims (1926), American Journal of International Law, Vol. 20,
at pp. 381 et seq. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Haya de la Torre Case, L C. J. Reports (1951), 71 356
Heathfield v. Chilton (1767), 4 Burr. 2015; 11 Digest (Repl.) 632, 557 . . 85
Helbert Wagg & Co., Ltd.'s Claim, Re, [1956] Ch. 323; [1956] 1 All E. R.
129; [1956] 2 W. L. R. 183; 100 Sol. Jo. 53; 2 Digest (Repl.) 267, 609: 298,
299
High Commissioner for India v. Ghosh, [1960] 1 Q. B. 134; [1959] 3 All
E. R. 659; [1959] 3 W. L. R. 811; 103 Sol. Jo. 939, C. A.; Digest
Cont. Vol. A 2, 399a 258
Home Missionary Society Case, Annual Digest of Public International
Law Cases, 1919-1922, 173^ 306
Hourigan, Re, [1946] N. Z. L. R. 1 493
lannone v. Radory Construction Corporation (1955), 141 N. Y. S. 2d,
311 92
I'm Alone Case (1935), United Nations Reports of International Arbitral
Awards, Vol. Ill, p. 1609 316,318
Interhandel Case (Preliminary Objections), I. C. J. Reports (1959), 6: 309,
466, 469
International Status of South-West Africa (Advisory Opinion) I. C. J.
Reports (1950), 128 591
Interpretation of the Peace Treaties, I. C. J. Reports (1950), 65, 221 : 359, 472
Interpretation of the Statute of Memel Territory (1932), P. C. I. J., Ser.
A/B,No.49 403
Ionian Ships, The (1855), Spinks, 193; 2 Ecc. & Ad. 212; 8 State Tr.
(N.S.) 434; 25 L. T. (O. S.) 312; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 549; 11 Digest
(Repl.) 636, 605 123
Island of Palmas Arbitration (1928), American Journal of International
Law, Vol. 22, 875 172, 173, 176, 177, 182
Italy Republic v, Hambros Bank, Ltd. and Gregory, [1950] Ch. 314;
[1950] 1 All E. R. 430 ; 66 (pt. 1) T. L. R. 468 ; 2 Digest (Repl.) 240, 423 : 90
Jablonsky v. German Reich, Annual Digest of Public International Law
Cases, 1935-7, Case No. 42 328
Janes Case (1926), Annual Digest of Public of International Law Cases,
1925-1926, No. 158 318
Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines. See Driefontein Consoli-
dated Gold Mines v. Janson.
Jessie, The (1921), British Year Book of International Law (1938), at p. 115: 310
Johore (Sultan) v. Abubakar Tunku Aris Bendahar, [1952] A. C. 318;
[1952] 1 All E. R. 1261; [1952] 1 T. L. R. 1106; 96 Sol. Jo. 325,
P. C. ; 1 Digest (Repl.) 57,422 163, 256, 258
Jordan v. Austrian Republic and Taubner (1947), Annual Digest of
Public International Law Cases, 1947, No. 15 321
Joyce V. Public Prosecutions Director, [1946] A. C. 347; [1946] 1 All
E. R. 186; 115 L. J. K. B. 146; 174 L. T. 206; 62 T. L. R. 208;
31 Cr. App. Rep. 57, H. L.; 14 Digest (Repl.) 140, 1030 . . 275, 340
22. XX Table of Cases
Juan Ysmael & Co. Inc. v. Government of Republic of Indonesia, [1955]
A. C. 72; [1954] 3 All E. R. 236; [1954] 3 W. L. R. 531 ; 98 Sol. Jo. 715.
P. C; 1 Digest (Repl.) 130, 762 255
Judgements of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour
Organisation upon Complaints made against the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), I. C. J.
Reports (1956), 77 463, 473
Jupiter, The, [1924] P. 236; 93 L. J. P. 156; 132 L. T. 624; 40 T. L. R.
815; 16 Asp. M. L. C. 447, C. A.; 1 Digest (Repl.) 130, 160 . . 160
K
Kahan v. Pakistan Federation, [1951] 2 K. B. 1003; [1951] 2 T. L. R.
697; 95 Sol. Jo. 562, C. A.; 1 Digest (Repl.) 58, -^26 258
Kahane v. Parisi and the Austrian State, Annual Digest of Public Inter-
national Law Cases, 1929-1930, 213 338
Karadzole v. Artukovic (1957), 247 F. (2d) 198 351
Karnuth v. U.S. (1929), 279 U. S. 231 508
Kasenkina Case (1948), American Journal of International Law (1949),
Vol. 43, 37-56 392
Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v. Bantham S.S. Co., Ltd.
(No. 2), [1938] 3 All E. R. 80; affirmed, [1939] 2 K. B. 544; [1939]
1 All E. R. 819; 108 L. J. K. B. 709; 161 L. T. 25; 55 T. L. R.
503; 83 Sol. Jo. 193; 44 Com. Cas. 170, C. A.; 41 Digest (Repl)
322, 1242 493
Kim, The, [1915] P. 215, 267; 32 T. L. R. 10; 60 Sol. Jo. 9; affirmed
(1917), 116 L. T. 577; 33 T. L. R. 400; 14 Asp. M. L. C. 65;
reversed (1921), 90 L. J. P. 188; 124 L. T, 802; 37 T. L. R. 317;
15 Asp. M. L. C. 210; 3 P. Cas. 851 ; 22 Digest (Repl.) 149, 1353 . . 564
Kinsella v. Krueget (1957), 354 U.S. 1 92
Kishangarh Electric Supply Co., Ltd. v. United States of Rajasthan (1959),
American Journal of International Law (1960), Vol. 54, 900-901 . . 332
Kolovrat v. Oregan (1961), 366 U.S. 187 448
Kotzias V. Tyser, [1920] 2 K. B. 69; 89 L. J. K. B. 529; 122 L. T. 795;
36 T. L. R. 194; 15 Asp. M. L. C. 16; 11 Digest (Repl.) 638, 621: 531
Krajina v. Tass Agency, [1949] 2 All E. R. 274; 93 Sol. Jo. 539, C. A.;
1 Digest (Repl.) 59,435 257
Kuenigl v. Donnersmarck, [1955] 1 Q. B. 515; [1955] 1 All E. R. 46; [1955]
2 W. L. R. 82; 99 Sol. Jo. 60; 2 Digest (Repl.) 221, i25 . . . . 507
Lake Lanoux Arbitration (1959), American Journal of International Law
Vol. 53, pp. 156-171 211
Lawless v. Government of Ireland. See (1960), British Year Book of
International Law, pp. 343-354; (1962) 56 American Journal of
International Law, p. 187 360,361
Lee V. Madigan (1959), 358 U. S. 228 494
Lee V. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, [1952] 2 Q. B. 329; [1952] 1
All E. R. 1175; [1952] 1 T. L. R. 1115; 96 Sol. Jo. 296, C. A.; 45
Digest (Repl.) 541, 7227 60
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. The State of Russia (1927), 21 F. (2d) 396: 150
Le Louis, The (1817), 2 Dods. 210; 1 1 Digest (Repl.) 323, 9 . . . . 88
Lever Brothers and Unilever N.V. v. H.M. Procurator General, The
Unitas, [1950] A. C. 536; [1950] 2 All E. R. 219; 66 (pt. 1) T. L. R.
1130. P. C; 37 Digest (Repl.) 463, 99 507
23. Table of Cases xxi
PAGE
Llandovery Castle, The, Annual Digest of Public International Law
Cases, 1923-1924, No. 235 520
Lotus Case (1927), P. C. I. J., Ser. A, No. 10 .. 41,43,44,52,243,246,
250,251,275,281, 282
Liibeck v. Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Annual Digest of Public International
Law Cases, 1927-1928, No. 3 40
Ludecke v. Watkins (1948), 335 U. S. 160 493
Luigi Monta of Genoa v, Cechofracht Co., Ltd., [1956] 2 Q. B. 552;
[1956] 2 All E. R. 768; [1956] 3 W. L. R. 480; 100 Sol. Jo. 568;
41 Digest (Repl.) 323, 724i 162
Lusitania Death Claims (1923), Annual Digest of Public International
Law Cases, 1923-1924, No. 113 318
Lynch, Re, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1929-1930,
221 336
M
Macleod v. A.-G. for New South Wales, [1891] A. C. 455; 60 L. J. P. C.
55; 65 L. T. 321; 7 T. L. R. 703; 17 Cox, C. C. 341, P. C; 14
Digest (Repl.) 145, 1075 244
Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 A. C. 645; [1968] 3 All E.R.
561: [1968] 3 W. L. R. 1229; 112 Sol. Jo. 1007; Digest Cont. Vol.
C 80, 26c 102, 154, 159
Maipo,The(1918), 252F. 627; (1919), 259 F. 367 268
Maria, The (1805), 5 Ch. Rob. 365; 1 Eng. Pr. Cas. 495; 37 Digest
(Repl.) 476, 261 551
Matson Navigation Co. v. U. S. (1956), 141 F. Supp. 929 227
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case (1924) and (1925), P. C. I. J.,
Ser. A, No. 2; Ser. A, No. 5 36,313,330,418
Mellenger v. New Brunswick Development Corporation, [1971] 2 All
E.R. 593; [1971] 1 W. L. R. 604; 115 Sol. Jo. 171, C. A. . . 257
Membership in the United Nations (Advisory Opinion), I. C. J.
Reports (1948), 57 149
Memel Territory, Interpretation of the Statute of, P. C. I. J., Ser. A/B,
No. 49 403
Mercado v. Feliciano (1958), 260 F. (2d) 500 93
Meunier, Re, [1894] 2 Q. B. 415; 63 L. J. M. C. 198; 71 L. T. 403;
42 W.R. 637; 18 Cox, C.C. 15; 24 Digest (Repl.) 994, i5 .. 352
Meuse Diversion of Water Case (1937), P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, Fasc. No. 70: 36, 21
1
Mexico Republic v. HoflFman (1945), 324 U. S. 30 . . . . 255, 268
Mighell V. Johore (Sultan), [1894] 1 Q. B. 149; 63 L. J. Q. B. 593;
70 L. T. 64; 58 J. P. 244; 10 T. L. R. 115; 9 R. 447, C. A.; 1
Digest (Repl.) 55, ^09 161,162,257,258
Mim, The. [1947] P. 115; [1947] 2 AH E. R. 476; [1948] L. J. R. 427;
37 Digest (Repl.) 505, 626 559
Minquiers and Ecrchos Case, I. C. J. Reports (1953), 47 . . 176, 475
Mohamed Ali v. Public Prosecutor, [1969] 1 A. C. 430; [1968] 3 All
E.R. 488; [1968] 3 W. L. R. 1076; 112 Sol. Jo. 802; Digest Cont.
Vol. C 295, la 512
Mohammad Mohy-ud-Din. v. King Emperor (India) (1946), 8 F. C. R. 94 : 88
Monetary Gold removed from Rome in 1943, 1. C. J. Reports (1954) 19: 462
Mortensen v. Peters (1906), 8 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 93; 14 Digest (Repl.)
154. *638 84
Muscat Dhows Case (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 1905) . . 278, 455
Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, [1891] A. C. 272; 60 L. J. P. C. 28;
64L. T. 378; 7 T. L. R. 378, P. C; 2 Digest (Repl.) 180, 95 .. 345
24. xxii Table of Cases
PAGE
N
N. V. De Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappli v. War Damage Commission,
(1957) American Journal of International Law, Vol. 51, 802 . . . . 511
Naim Molvan, Owner of Motor Vessel " Asya *'
v. A.-G. for Palestine,
[1948] A. C. 351; [1949] L. J. R. 601, P. C; 8 Digest (Repl.)
698, 75 278
National City Bank v. Republic of China (1955), 348 U. S. 356 . . . . 259
Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (1923), P. C. I. J.,
Ser. B, No. 4, 27 123, 474
Naulilaa Case (1928), Recueil of Decisions of the Mixed Arbitral
Tribunals, Vol. 8, 409 484
Neumeister v. Wemhoff Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
New Jersey v. Delaware (1934), 291 U. S. 361 43, 207
Newcastle Diocese Trustees v. Ebbeck (1961), A. L. R. 339 . . . . 60
Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S. (1892), (Cal.) 12 S. Ct. 336; 142 U. S. 651;
35L. Ed. 1146 345
North American Dredging Company Case, Annual Digest of Public
International Law Cases, 1925-1926, No. 218 .
.
299, 300
North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration (1910) 53, 222, 240, 455
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, I. C. J. Reports, 1969, 3 . . 36, 41, 43,
48, 49, 99, 177, 194, 224, 225, 228, 473
Northcote v. Douglas. See The Franciska
Northern Cameroons Case, I. C. J. Reports (1963), 15 470
Norwegian Loans Case, I. C. J. Reports (1957), 9 466
Nottebohm Case, I. C. J. Reports (1955), 4 . . 99, 316, 336, 340, 475
Novello V. Toogood (1823), 1 B. & C. 554; 2 Dow. & Ry. K. B. 833;
1 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 181 ; 11 Digest (Repl.) 632, 561 . . . . 85
O
Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918), 246 U. S. 297 146
Offshore Mineral Rights, Reference, Re (1967), 62 W. W. R. 21; 65
D. L. R. (2d) 353; Digest Cont. Vol. C 88, i2J<Ja 218
Ortoh, Ex parte (1942), 59 Weekly Notes (New South Wales) 146 . . 270
Oscar Chinn Case. See Chinn, Oscar, Case.
Ostime (Inspector of Taxes) v. Australian Mutual Provident Society, [1960]
A. C. 459; [1959] 3 All E. R. 245; [1959] 3 W. L. R. 410; 103 Sol. Jo.
811 : 38 T. C. 492; L. (T. C.) 1912; [1959] T. R. 211 ; 52 R. & I. T. 673;
38A. T. C. 219, H. L.; Digest Cont. Vol. A 898, 7i50 .. .. 91
Ottoman Debt Arbitration, United Nations Reports of International
Arbitral Awards, Vol. 1, 571-2 331
OvertheTop, The(1925), 5 F. (2d)838 91
Pan American Tankers Corporation v. Republic of Viet-Nam (1969),
296 F. Supp. 561 255
Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case (1939), Pub. P. C. I. J., Ser. A/B
No. 76 309,312
Paquete Habana, The (1900), 175 U. S. 677; 20 S. Ct. 290; 44 L. Ed. 320
20 43 44 52 55 91
Parkinson v. Potter (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 152; 55 L. J. Q.' B.'l53; 53
L. T. 818; 50J. P. 470; 34W. R. 215; 2 T. L. R. 184; 11 Digest
(Repl.) 630, 531 264
25. Table of Cases xxiii
PAOB
Parlement Beige, The (1879), 4 P. D. 129; on appeal (1880), 5 P. D.
197; 42 L. T. 273; 28 W. R. 642; 4 Asp. M. L. C. 234; 11 Digest
(Repl.) 628, 57<J 90,268
Pauling V. McElroy (1958), 164 F. Supp. 390 91, 92
Pdzmdny (Peter) University Case (1933), P. C. I. J., Ser. A/B, No. 61 . . 332
Peru Republic v. Dreyfus Brothers & Co. (1888), 38 Ch. D. 348; 57
L. J. Ch. 536; 58 L. T. 433; 36 W. R. 492; 4 T. L. R. 333; 28
Digest (Repl.) 759, y-ZP 156
Pesaro, The (1926). 271 U. S. 562 267, 268
Petroff, £:x/)ar/e (1971), unreported 388
Petroleum Development Ltd., and Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, Arbitration
between (1953), American Journal of International Law, Vol. 47,
156-9 226
Philippson v. Imperial Airways, Ltd., [1939] A. C. 332; [1939] 1 All
E. R. 761; 108 L. J. K. B. 415; 160 L. T. 410; 53 T. L. R. 490;
83 Sol. Jo. 356; 44 Com. Cas. 180, H. L. ; 8 Digest (Repl.) 642, 19 . . 400
Pilcher v, Dezso (1955), American Journal of International Law (1955),
Vol. 49. 417 496
Pious Fund of California Case (1902) 53,455
Piracy Jure Gentium, Re, [1934] A. C. 586; 103 L. J. P. C. 153; 152
L. T. 73; 51 T. L. R. 12; 78 Sol. Jo. 585; 18 Asp. M. L. C. 528,
P. C; 15 Digest (Repl.) 871, 5i92 56, 87,'88, 286
Polish Nationals in Danzig, Treatment of, P. C. I. J., Ser. A/B, No. 44: 96
Polites V. The Commonwealth (1945), 70 C. L. R. 60 . . 84, 85, 88, 346
Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 K. B. 857; 84 L. J. K. B. 1001; 112.
L. T. 213; 31 T. L. R. 162; 59 Sol. Jo. 216; 20 Com. Cas. 189;
32R. P. C. 109, C. A.; 2 Digest (Repl.) 213, 275 506
Porto Alexandre, The, [1920] P. 30; 89 L. J. P. 97; 122 L. T. 661;
36T.L.R.66;15Asp. M. L.C.I, C. A.; 1 Digest (Repl.) 129, 752 .. 268
Power Authority of New York v. Federal Power Commision (1957), 247
F. (2d) 538 428
Preah Vihear Temple Case (Preliminary Objections), I. C. J. Reports (1961),
17 465
Preah Vihear Temple Case (Merits) (Cambodia-Thailand), I. C. J. Reports
(1962), 6 36, 182, 205
Public Prosecutor v. Koi, [1968] A. C. 829; [1968] 1 All E. R. 419; [1968]
2 W. L. R. 715; 112 Sol. Jo. 15; Digest Cont. Vol. C 159, 607Aa 512
Q
Quirin, £jcpar/e (1942), 317 U.S. 1 512
R
R. V. A.B., [1941] 1 K. B. 454; 165 L. T. 382; sub mm. R. v. Kent,
110 L. J. K. B. 268; 57 T. L. R. 307; 85 Sol. Jo. 315; 28 Cr. App.
Rep. 23, C. C. A.; 15 Digest (Repl.) 1078, 10,641 . . 261, 262
R. V. Anderson (1868), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 161; 38 L. J. M. C. 12; 19
L. T. 400; 33 J. P. 100; 17 W. R. 208; 11 Cox, C. C. 198; 14
Digest (Repl.) 150, 772-/ 246
R. V. Bottrill, Ex parte Kuechenmeister, [1947] K. B. 41 ; [1946] 2 All
E. R. 434; 175 L. T. 232; 62 T. L. R. 570; sub mm. R. v. Kuechen-
meister, Ex parte Bottrill, 115 L. J. K. B. 500, C. A.; 2 Digest
(Repl.) 244, -^65 493
R. V. Corrigan, [1931] 1 K. B. 527; 100 L. J. K. B. 55; 144 L. T. 187;
47 T. L. R. 27; 29 Cox, C. C. 198; 22 Cr. App. Rep. 106, C. C. A.;
24 Digest (Repl.) 1009, 752 .353
26. xxiv Table of Cases
PAOB
R. V. Cox, [1968] 1 All E.R. 410; [1968] 1 W. L. R. 88; 132 J. P. 162;
111 Sol. Jo. 966; 52 Cr. App. Rep. 106, C. A.; Digest Cont. Vol. C
ISl, llOOb 249
R. V. Godfrey, [1923] 1 K. B. 24; 92 L. J. K. B. 205; 128 L. T. 115;
86 J. P. 219; 39 T. L. R. 5; 67 Sol. Jo. 147; 27 Cox, C. C. 338;
24 Digest (Repl.) 989, 5 250
R. V. Gordon-Finlayson, Ex parte An Officer, [1941] 1 K. B. 171; 110
L. J. K. B. 289; 57 T. L. R. 270; 85 Sol. Jo. 214; 14 Digest (Repl.)
152,1144 246
R. V. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Kolczynski, [1955] 1 Q. B.
540; [1955] 2 W. L. R. 116; 119 J. P. 68; 99 Sol. Jo. 61 ; sub nom. Re
Kolczynski,[1955]l All E.R. 31; 24 Digest (Repl.) 993, i7 .. ..352
R. V. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Minervini, [1959] 1 Q. B. 155;
[1958] 3 All E. R. 318; [1958] 3 W. L. R. 559; 122 J. P. 473; 102 Sol. Jo.
777; [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 303, D. C; Digest Cont. Vol. A 576, 76a
246, 348
R, V. Governor of Brixton Prison. Ex parte Schtraks, [1963] 1 Q. B. 55;
[1962] 2 W. L. R. 976; 106 Sol. Jo. 372; sub nom. Re Shalom
Schtraks, [1962] 2 All E.R. 176; 126 J. P. 277; affirmed sub nom.
Schtraks v. Government of Israel, [1962] 3 All E. R. 529; [1962]
3 W. L. R. 1013; 106 Sol. Jo. 833, H. L.; Digest Cont. Vol. A
575,4a 156,352
R. V. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Soblen; [1963] 2 Q. B. 243
[1962] 3 All E. R. 641; [1962] 3 W. L. R. 1154; 106 Sol. Jo. 706
on appeal, [1963] 2 Q. B. at p. 283; [1962] 3 All E. R. at p. 658
[1962] 3 W. L. R. at p. 1176; 106 Sol. Jo. 736, C. A.; Digest Cont
Vol. A 24, 149a 354
R. V. Home Secretary, Ex parte L., [1945] K. B. 7; 114 L. J. K. B. 229
2 Digest (Repl.) 215, 255 340
R. V. Hulten and Jones (1945), Times, February 20, 21 272
R. V. Keyn (1876), 2 Ex. D. 63; 46 L. J. M. C. 17; 41 J. P. 517; 13
Cox, C. C. 403; 1 Digest (Repl.) 121, 131 86, 87, 244
R. V. Madan. [1961] 2 Q. B. 1; [1961] 1 All E. R. 588; [1961] 2 W. L. R.
231; 125 J. P. 246; 105 Sol. Jo. 160; 45 Cr. App. Rep. 80, C. C. A.;
Digest Cont. Vol. A 266, 529a 261
R. V. Ndhlovu, 1968 (4) S. A. 515 103
R. V. NUlins (1884), 53 L. J. M. C. 157; 14 Digest (Repl.) 149, 1120 . . 250
Rahimtoola V.Nizam of Hyderabad, [1958] A. C. 379; [1957] 3 All E. R.
441; [1957] 3 W. L. R. 884; 101 Sol. Jo. 901, H. L.; 1 Digest (Repl.)
59, -^i-^ 254, 255, 256. 268
Ranollo Case (1946), 67 N. Y. S. (2d) 31 263,585
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations,
I. C. J. Reports (1949), 174 .. 39,70,307,319,449,475,564,610
Republic of China, See China Republic.
Republic of Italy. See Italy Republic.
Republic of Mexico. See Mexico Republic.
Republic of Peru. See Peru Republic.
Reservations to the Genocide Convention, I. C. J. Reports (1951),
15 472
Rich V. Naviera Vacuba, S. A., and Republic of Cuba (1961), American
Journal of International Law (1962), Vol. 56 pp. 550-552 . . . . 162
Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case (Preliminary Objections)
I. C.J. Reports (1957), 125 467,469
Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case (Portugal-India), I. C. J
Reports (1960), 6 42,240,333
27. Table of Cases xxv
PAGE
Rights of Citizenship in Succession States Cases, Annual Digest of
Public International Law Cases, 1919-1922, Nos. 5, 6, 7 .
.
144
Rights of Nationals of United States of America in Morocco Case,
I. C.J. Reports (1952), 176 41,366,390
River Oder Case (1929), Pub. P. C.I. J., Ser. A, No. 23 208
Robert E. Brown Claim (1925), American Journal of International Law,
Vol. 19, at pp. 193 e/^e^ 332
Rocha V. U. S. (1961), 288 F. (2d) 545 275
Rose V. R., [1947] 3 D. L. R. 618; 88 Can. C. C. 114; 3 C. L. R 277;
15 Digest (Repl.) 805, *50/5 262
Ruffy-Arnell and Baumann Aviation Co. v. R., [1922] 1 K. B. 599;
91 L. J. K. B. 417; 126L. T. 573; 38 T. L. R. 210; 66 Sol. Jo. 270;
16 Digest (Repl.) 272, 595 531
Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Comptoir d'Escompte de
Mulhouse, [1925] A. C. 112; 93 L. J. K. B. 1098; 132 L. T. 99;
40 T. L. R. 837; 68 Sol. Jo. 841, H. L.; 10 Digest (Repl.) 1297,
9151 299
Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic v. Cibrario (1923), 235
N. Y. 255 160
S
Salem Case (1932), United Nations Reports of International Arbitral
Awards, Vol. II, 1202 308
SalimoflF& Co. v. Standard Oil Co. of New York (1933), 262 N. Y. 220. . 152
Salomon v. Customs & Excise Commissioners, [1967] 2 Q. B. 116;
[1966] 2 All E. R. 340; [1966] 3 W. L. R. 36; 110 Sol. Jo. 290;
[1966] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 642; reversed, [1967] 2 Q. B. at p. 130; [1966]
3 All E. R. 871; [1966] 3 W. L. R. 1223: 110 Sol. Jo. 833; [1966] 2
Lloyd's Rep. 460, C. A.; Digest Cont. Vol. B 621, 77a .
.
90
Savarkar Case (1911), Stowell and Munro Cases, 1, 416 . . 108, 455
Sayce v. Ameer Ruler Sadiq Mohammad Abbasi Bahawalpur State,
[1952] 1 All E. R. 326; 96 Sol. Jo. 74; [1952] W. N. 62; 102 L. Jo.
91; 213 L. T. Jo. 79; affirmed, [1952] 2 Q. B. 390; [1952] 2 All
E. R. 64; [1952] 1 T. L. R. 1457; 96 Sol. Jo. 395, C. A. ; 1 Digest (Repl.)
60,447 163
Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon (1812), 7 Cranch 116 .
.
253, 265, 269
Schtraks v. Government of Israel. See R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison,
Ex parte Schtraks.
Scotia, The (1871), 14 Wallace 170; 2 L. Ed. 822 39
Seery v. The United States (1955), 127 F. Supp. 601 92
Sei Fujii v. The State of California (Supreme Court of California) (1952),
38 Advance California Reports 817 92
Serbian Loans Case (1929), P. C. I. J., Ser. A, Nos. 20-21 .. .. 36
Settlers of German Origin in Territory ceded by Germany to Poland
(1923), P. C. I. J., Ser. B, No. 6 323,328,331
Shalom Schtraks, Re. See R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte
Schtraks.
Shimoda and Ors. v. The Japanese State (1963), Japanese Annual of
International Law, 1964, 212-252 515
Shneiderman v. Metropolitan Casualty Co. (1961), 220 N. Y. S. (2d) 947: 493
South-West Africa Cases, Preliminary Objections I. C. J. Reports (1962),
319 397,399,468,469
South-West Africa Cases, 2nd Phase, I. C. J. Reports (1966), 6: 4, 37, 51, 72,
127, 180, 449, 468, 469, 470, 563, 592
28. xxvi Table of Cases
PAOB
Sovfracht V/O v. Van Udens Scheepvaart en Agentuur Maatschappij
(N. V. Gebr.), [1943] A. C. 203; [1943] 1 All E. R. 76; 112 L. J,
K. B. 32; 168 L. T. 323; 59 T. L. R. 101 ; 86 Sol. Jo. 376, H. L.;
2 Digest (Repl.) 220. 322 506
Stegeman v. United States (1970), 425 F. (2d) 984 275
Steiner and Gross v. Polish State (1928), Annual Digest of Public
International Law Cases, 1927-1928, Case No. 188 69
Stoeck V. Public Trustee, [1921] 2 Ch. 67; 90 L. J. Ch. 386; 125 L. T.
851 ; 37 T. L. R. 666; 65 Sol. Jo. 605; 11 Digest (Repl.) 324, 13 . . 339,
341,342
Stogmuller and Matznetter Cases 362
Succession States Cases, Rights of Citizenship in. Annual Digest of
Public International Law Cases 1919-1922, Nos. 5, 6, 7 . . . . 144
Szcupak V. Agent Judiciaire du Tresor Public (1966), 41 International
Law Reports, 20 323
T
Tag V. Rogers (1959), 267 F. (2d) 664 91,92,93
Tanistry Case (1608), Dav. Ir. 28; 17 Digest (Repl.) 8, •/2 .. 38
Techt V. Hughes (1920), 229 N. Y. 222 508
Temple of Preah Vihear (Case Concerning), (Merits) (Cambodia-Thailand),
I. C. J. Reports (1962), 6 36, 182, 205
Territory v. H. O. (1957), 41 Hawaii Reports 565 92
Texas V. White (1868), 74 U. S. 700 159
Theophile v. Solicitor General, [1950] A. C. 186; [1950] 1 All E. R.
405; 66 (pt. 1) T. L. R. 441 ; 94 Sol. Jo. 208; H. L.; 4 Digest (Repl.)
207,25 88
Tinoco Arbitration (1923), United Nations Reports of International
Arbitral Awards, Vol. 1, 369 145, 333
Trail Smelter Arbitration Case (1941), United Nations Reports of Inter-
national Arbitral Awards, Vol. Ill, 1905 119
Treacy v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1971] A. C. 537; [1971] 1 All
E. R. 110; [1971]2W. L. R. 112; 135J. P. 112; 115 Sol. Jo. 12; 55
Cr. App. Rep. 113, H. L 250
Treatment of Polish Nationals in Dantzig (1932), P. C. I. J., Ser. A/B,
No. 44 96
Triandafilou v. Minist^re Public (1942), American Journal of Inter-
national Law (1945), Vol. 39, pp. 345-347 266
Triqiiet v. Bath (1764), 3 Burr 1478; 1 Wm. Bl. 471; 11 Digest (Repl.)
632,555 85
Tsiang v. Tsiang (1949), 86 N. Y. S. (2d) 556 585
Tucker v. Alexandroflf (1901), 183 U. S. 424 271
Tunis and Morocco, Nationality Decrees Issued in (1923), P. C. I. J.,
Ser. B, No. 4 123,474
U
U.S. V. Bowman (1922), 260 U. S. 94 244
U.S. V. Chandler (1947), 72 F. Supp. 230 275
U.S. V. Coplon and Gubitcher (1950), 88 F. Supp. 915 260
U.S. V. Deutsches Kalisyndikat Gesellschaft (1929), 31 F. (2d) 199 . . 255
U.S. V. Insull (1934), 8 F. Supp. 310 108
U.S. V. List and Others, Case No. 7 (1947^8), War Crimes Trial Reports,
Vol. 8, pp. 39-92 521, 528, 529
U.S. V. Melekh (1960), 190 F. Supp. 67 91. 260
29. Table of Cases xxvii
PAOB
U.S. V. New York Trust Co. (1946), 75 F. Supp. 583 160
U.S. V. Percheman (1833), 7 Peters 51 328
U.S. V. Rodriquez (1960), 182 F. Supp. 479 275
U.S. V. Schlotfeldt (1938), 26 F. Supp. 283 348
U.S. V. Sobell (1957), 244 F. (2d) 520 108
U.S. V. Uhl (1943), 137 F. (2d) 898 340
U.S. V. Wong Kim Ark (1898), 169 U. S. 649 336
U.S.A. V. Wagner (1867), 2 Ch. App. 582; 36 L. J. Ch. 624; 16 L. T.
646; 15 W. R. 1026; 18 Digest (Repl.) 25, 750 253
U.S.A. and Republic of France v. DoUfus Mieg et Cie S.A. and Bank of
England, [1952] A. C. 582; [1952] 1 All E. R. 572; [1952] 1 T. L. R.
541 ; 96 Sol. Jo. 180, H. L. ; 1 Digest (Repl.) 58, 433 . . . . 253, 255
U.S.A. (Rights of Nationals of) in Morocco Case, I. C. J. Reports (1952),
176 41,123
U.S. Forces, Exemption of, from Canadian Criminal Law, Re, [1943]
4 D. L. R. 1
1
271
V
Van Heyningen v. Netherlands East Indies (1949), Queensland State
Reports 54 163
Virginius, The, Case (1873), Moore, Digest of International Law,
Vol. II, 895 279
W
Walker v. Baird, [1892] A. C. 491; 61 L. J. P. C. 92; 67 L. T. 513,
P. C; 11 Digest (Repl.) 618, -^52 90
Waltier v. Thomson (1960), 189 F. Supp. 319 264
Weber, Ex parte, [1916] 1 A. C. 421 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 944; 114 L. T. 214;
80 J. P. 249; 32 T. L. R. 312; 60 Sol. Jo. 306; 25 Cox, C. C. 258,
H. L.; 2 Digest (Reol.) 214. 279 341
West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. R., [1905] 2 K. B. 391; 74
L. J. K. B. 753; 93 L. T. 207; 53 W. R. 660; 21 T. L. R. 562;
49 Sol. Jo. 552; 16 Digest (Repl.) 271, i<S6 .. .. 28,42,55,86,329
Whitney v. Robertson (1888), 124 U. S. 190 92
Wildenhus' Case (1887), 120 U. S. 1 248
Wimbledon, The (1923), P. C. I. J., Ser. A, No. 1 . . 239, 240
Winans v. A.-G., [1910] A. C. 27; 79 L. J. K. B. 156; 101 L. T. 754;
26 T. L. R. 133; 54 Sol. Jo. 133, H. L.; 21 Digest (Repl.) 5,1 .. 346
WolflF V. Oxholm (1 8 1 7), 6 M. & S. 92 ; 11 Digest (Repl.) 386, 466 . . 85
Wright V. Cantrell (1943), 44 S. R. N. S. W. 45; 61 W. N. 38; 32 Digest
(Repl.) 129, *495 253, 269, 271
Wulfsohn V. R.S.F.S.R. (1923), 234 N. Y. 372; 138 N. E. 24 . . . . 160
Y
Yamashita Trial, War Crimes Trial Reports, Vol. 4, pp. 1-96 . . . . 520
Youmans Case, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases,
1925-1926,223 305
Z
Zamora, The, [1916] 2 A. C. 77; 85 L. J. P. 89; 114 L. T. 626; 32
T. L, R. 436; 60 Sol. Jo. 416; 13 Asp. M. L. C. 330, P. C; 37
Digest (Repl.) 542, 1089 89, 90, 544
30.
31. PART 1
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN GENERAL
Chapter 1
NATURE, ORIGINS AND BASIS OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW
1.
—
Nature Amy Origins
Definition
International law may be defined as that body of law which is
composed for its greater part of the principles and rules of
conduct which States feel themselves bound to observe, and
therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each
other, ^ and which includes also:
—
(a) the rules of law relating to the functioning of inter-
national institutions or organisations, their relations
with each other, and their relations with States and
individuals; and
(b) certain rules of law relating to individuals and non-
State entities so far as the rights or duties of such
individuals and non-State entities are the concern of
the international community.
This definition goes beyond the traditional definition of
international law as a system composed solely of rules governing
the relations between States only. Such traditional definition
of the subject, with its restriction to the conduct of States
inter se, will be found set out in the majority of the older
standard works of international law, but in view of develop-
ments during the last three decades, it cannot stand as a
comprehensive description of all the rules now acknowledged
to form part of the subject.
* The above definition is an adaptation of the definition of international
law by the American authority, Professor Charles Cheney Hyde; see Hyde,
International Law (2nd edition, 1947), Vol. I, §1.
32. 2 Part 1.—International Law in General
These developments are principally: —(i) the establishment
of a large number of permanent international institutions or
organisations such as, for example the United Nations and
the World Health Organisation, regarded as possessing inter-
national legal personahty, and entering into relations with
each other and with States; and (ii) the present movement
(sponsored by the United Nations and the Council of Europe)
to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of indivi-
duals,^ the creation of new rules for the punishment of persons
committing the international crime of genocide or race des-
truction,^ and the imposition of duties on individuals under the
historic judgment in 1946 of the International Military Tri-
bunal of Nuremberg, by which certain acts were declared to
be international crimes, namely, crimes against peace, crimes
against humanity, and conspiracy to commit these crimes.^
Both categories of developments have given rise to new rules
of international law, and may be expected to influence the
growth of new rules in the future. The definition given above
is intended to cover such new rules under heads (ay and (b).
Nevertheless, from the practical point of view, it is well to
remember that international law is primarily a system regulating
the rights and duties of States inter se. So much is hinted at
in the very title " international law ", or in another title
frequently given to the subject
—" the law of nations ", although
strictly speaking the word " nation " is only in a crude way a
^ See below, pp. 347-364.
* Under the Genocide Convention adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on December 9, 1948, and which entered into force on January 12,
1951.
' The principles implicit in the judgment of the International Military
Tribunal were formulated by the International Law Commission of the
Umted Nations as a Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security
of Mankind in a Report presented in 1950; note Principle I, formulated in
this Report :
—" Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime
under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment."
* There is a division of opinion among writers whether international law
includes the " internal " law of international institutions, such as the rules
governing the rights and duties of officials of these institutions. For the view
that the expression " international law " in Article 38 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice does not cover this " internal " law, see per
Judge C6rdova I.C.J. Reports, 1956, at pp. 165-166.
33. Chap, 1.
—
Nature, Origins and Basis of International Law 3
synonym for the word " State ".^ Indeed, it is a very good
practical working rule to regard international law as mainly
composed of principles whereby certain rights belong to, or
certain duties are imposed upon States.
Nevertheless, although the principal component of the sys-
tem is represented by binding rules, imposing duties and con-
ferring rights upon States, international lawyers have now
increasingly to concern themselves with desiderata, guidelines,
and recommended standards expressed in a non-binding form
(e.g., as in the Declarations adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly, the Recommendations of the International
Labour Conference, and the Recommendations of the periodi-
ca] Consultative Meetings held under the Antarctic Treaty of
1959), but which many States concerned feel constrained to
observe. These may indeed eventually evolve into binding
legal rules, e.g., by general acceptance or approval (cf. Article
IX, paragraph 4 of the Treaty on Antarctica of 1959, under
which recommended measures may become " ejBfective
"
upon approval by the parties concerned).
The main object of international law has been to produce
an ordered rather than a just system of international relations,
yet in later developments (for example, in the rules as to State
responsibility concerning denial of justice,^ and in the rules
and practice as to international arbitration) there has been
evidence of some striving to ensure that, objectively, justice be
done between States. Moreover, apart from seeing that States
receive just treatment, the modem law of nations aims at
securing justice for human beings. It is significant further
that the word " Justice " appears in the titles respectively of
the Permanent Court of International Justice and its successor
^
" International law " is the title most frequently adopted by English and
American jurists (cf. the treatises of Hall, Westlake, Oppenheim, Kent,
Wheaton, Hyde, and Fenwick). Twiss, and Lorimer elected to use the title
" law of nations ", while Hannis Taylor and A. S. Hershey preferred " inter-
national public law ". Other suggested titles have been " the law between
Powers " (e.g., by Taube), " inter-State law ", and " the law of the community
of- States " (e.g., by Verdross). Judge Jessup in his Transitional Law (1956),
adopted this latter title to denote " all law which regulates actions or events
that transcend national boundaries ".
* See below, pp. 307-309.
34. 4 Part 1
.
—
International Law in General
the International Court of Justice, both being judicial tribunals
set up to decide disputes between States and to give advisory
opinions according to international law.^ That justice is a
primary purpose of the law of nations emphasises its kinship
to State law.
General and Regional Rules of International Law; Community
Law
There is a recognised distinction between general and regional
rules of international law, that is to say between, on the one
hand, rules which, practically speaking, are of universal
apphcation,2and, on the other hand, rules which have developed
in a particular region of the world as between the States there
located, without becoming rules of a universal character. The
best illustration of such regional rules are those which have been
commonly followed by the group of Latin American States, for
example, the special rules relating to diplomatic asylum. This
so-called " Latin American international law " and the nature
of regional rules were discussed by the International Court of
Justice in the Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case (1950);^ accord-
ing to the judgments in this case:
—
{a) regional rules are not
necessarily subordinate to general rules of international law,
but may be in a sense "complementary" or "correlated" thereto,
and {b) an international tribunal must, as between States in
the particular region concerned, give effect to such regional
rules as are duly proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal.
In this connection, there may perhaps be noted also the
modern tendency towards regionalism in international organisa-
tion, reflected in the fusion of States into regional " functional
"
groupings (for example the European Economic Community
* There are besides the several references to "justice" in the Charter of
the United Nations signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945; see e.g., the
Preamble, Article 1, paragraph 1, Article 2, paragraph 3, and Article 76.
Humanitarian considerations are not in themselves sufficient to generate
international legal rights and obligations: South West Africa Cases, 2nd Phase,
I.C.J. Reports, 1966, 6, at p. 34.
* McDougal and Lasswell in Studies in World Public Order (1960) p. 1 at
pp. 5-6, rightly query the notion that international law is really and literally
universal law.
» See I.C.J. Reports (1950), 266.
35. Chap. 1.
—
Nature, Origins and Basis of International Law 5
(Common Market) under the Treaty of Rome of March 25,
1957, establishing this Community), the conclusion of regional
security, treaties (for example, the North Atlantic Security Pact
of April 4, 1949^), the creation of regional international organs
(for example, the South Pacific Commission established in
1948), and the estabUshment of regional international tribunals
(for example, the Court originally established by Articles 31-45
of the Treaty constituting the European Coal and Steel Com-
munity of April 18, 1951, and which is now the Court of Justice
of this Community, of the European Economic Community
(Common Market), and of the European Atomic Energy Com-
munity (EURATOM) under the Rome Convention of March
25, 1957, Relating to Certain Institutions common to the
European Conmiunities).
The common rules (including the judge-made law of the
Court) apphcable within the legal and administrative frame-
work of the European Communities have developed to such an
extent since 1957 as to merit the designation of " Community
Law " {droit communitaire)} One of the distinctive charac-
teristics of this Community Law may be its direct applicability,
in certain cases and under certain conditions, in the sytems of
national law of each member of the European Communities,
with national Courts also ready to give effect to Community
Law where its primacy ought to be recognised,^ e.g., if the
Community rule or norm is clear and precise, and uncon-
ditional, without the need for further implementary action.
Origins and Development of Interaational Law
The modern system of international law is a product, roughly
speaking, of only the last four hundred years. It grew to
some extent out of the usages and practices of modern European
^ Stricto sensu, however, this Pact is not a " regional arrangement " within
the meaning of that expression in Articles 52 and 53 of the United Nations
Charter of June 26. 1945.
^ See generally W. J. G. van der Meersch (ed.), Droit des Communautes
Europeennes (1969).
• See Axline, European Community Law and Organisational Development
(1968), and Hay, " Supremacy of Community Law in National Courts ",
American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 16 (1968), 524, at pp. 532-540.
36. 6 Part 1.
—
International Law in General
States in their intercourse and communications, while it still
bears witness to the influence of writers and jurists of the
sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, who first
formulated some of its most fundamental tenets. Moreover,
it remains tinged with concepts such as national and territorial
sovereignty, and the perfect equality and independence of
States, that owe their force to poUtical theories underlying the
modern European State system, although, curiously enough,
some of these concepts have commanded the support of newly
emerged non-European States.
But any historical account of the system must begin with
earUest times, for even in the period ofantiquity rules of conduct
to regulate the relations between independent communities
were felt necessary and emerged from the usages observed by
these communities in their mutual relations. Treaties, the
immunities of ambassadors, and certain laws and usages of
war are to be found many centuries before the dawn of
Christianity, for example in ancient Egypt and India,^ while
there were historical cases of recourse to arbitration and
mediation in ancient China and in the early Islamic world,
although it would be wrong to regard these early instances as
representing any serious contribution towards the evolution
of the modern system of international law.
We find, for example, in the period of the Greek City States,
small but independent of one another, evidence of an embryonic,
although regionally limited, form of international law which
one authority—Professor Vinogradofif—aptly described as
" intermunicipal ".^ This " intermunicipal " law was com-
posed of customary rules which had crystaUised into law from
long-standing usages followed by these cities such as, for
instance, the rules as to the inviolabiUty of heralds in battle, the
need for a prior declaration of war, and the enslavement of
* See A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (revised
edition, 1954), pp. 1 et seq., S. KorflF, Hague Recueil (1923), Vol. I, pp. 17-22
and H. Chatterjee, International Law and Inter-State Relations in Ancient
India (1958).
* See VinogradofiF, Bibliotheca Visseriana Dissertationum Jits Internationale
lllustrantium (1923), Vol. I, pp. 13 et seq.
37. Chap. 1.
—
Nature, Origins and Basis of International Law 7
prisoners of war. These rules were applied not only in the
relations inter se of these sovereign Greek cities, but as between
them and neighbouring States. Underlying the rules there were,
however, deep rehgious influences, characteristic of an era in
which the distinctions between law, moraUty, justice and
religion were not sharply drawn.
In the period of Rome's dominance of the ancient world,
here also emerged rules governing the relations between Rome
and the various nations or peoples with which it had contact.
One significant aspect of these rules was their legal character,
thus contrasting with the rehgious nature of the customary
rules observed by the Greek City States. But Rome's main
contribution to the development of international law was less
through these rules than through the indirect influence of
Roman Law generally, inasmuch as when the study of Roman
Law was revived at a later stage in Europe, it provided analogies
and principles capable of ready adaptation to the regulation of
relations between modern States.
ActuaUy, the total direct contribution of the Greeks and
Romans to the development of international law was relatively
meagre. Conditions favourable to the growth of a modem
law of nations did not really come into being until the fifteenth
century, when in Europe there began to evolve a number of
independent civiHsed States.^ Before that time Europe had
passed through various stages in which either conditions were
so chaotic as to make impossible any ordered rules of conduct
between nations, or the poUtical circumstances were such that
there was no necessity for a code of international law. Thus
in the later period of Roman history with the authority of the
Roman Empire extending over the whole civilised world, there
were no independent States in any sense, and therefore a law
of nations was not called for. During the early mediaeval
era, there were two matters particularly which mihtated against
the evolution of a system of international law :
—(a) the temporal
^ Nevertheless there is evidence of some development of international law
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in the Eastern Empire and in Italy,
while the Sovereigns of mediaeval England observed certain rules and usages
in their relations with foreign Sovereigns.
38. 8 Part 1.
—
International Law in General
and spiritual unity of the greater part of Europe under the
Holy Roman Empire, although to some extent this unity was
notional and belied by numerous instances of conflict and
disharmony; and (b) the feudal structure of Western Europe,
hinging on a hierarchy of authority which not only clogged the
emergence of independent States but also prevented the Powers
of the time from acquiring the unitary character and authority
of modern sovereign States.
Profound alterations occurred in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. The discovery of the New World, the Renaissance
of learning, and the Reformation as a religious revolution
disrupted the facade of the political and spiritual unity of
Europe, and shook the foundations of mediaeval Christendom.
Theories were evolved to meet the new conditions; intellec-
tually, the secular conceptions of a modern sovereign State
and of a modern independent Sovereign found expression
in the works of Bodin (1530-1596), a Frenchman, Machiavelli
(1469-1527), an Itahan, and later in the seventeenth century,
Hobbes (1588-1679), an Englishman.
With the growth of a number of independent States there
was initiated, as in early Greece, the process of formation of
customary rules of international law from the usages and
practices followed by such States in their mutual relations. So
in Italy with its multitude of small independent States, main-
taining diplomatic relations with each other and with the
outside world, there developed a number of customary rules
relating to diplomatic envoys, for example, their appointment,
reception and inviolability.^
An important fact also was that by the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries jurists had begun to take into account the evolution
of a community of independent sovereign States and to think
and write about different problems of the law of nations,
realising the necessity for some body of rules to regulate
' Cf. also the influence of the early codes of mercantile and maritime usage,
e.g., the Rhodian Laws formulated between the seventh and the ninth cen-
turies, the Laws or Rolls of Oleron collected in France during the twelfth
century, and the Consolato del Mare as to the customs of the sea followed by
Mediterranean countries and apparently collected in Spain in the fourteenth
century.
39. Chap. 1.
—
Nature^ Origins and Basis of International Law 9
certain aspects of the relations between such States. Where
there were no established customary rules, these jurists were
obliged to devise and fashion working principles by reasoning
or analogy. Not only did they draw on the principles of
Roman Law which had become the subject of revived study in
Europe as from the end of the eleventh century onwards, but
they had recourse also to the precedents of ancient history, to
theology, to the canon law, and to the semi-theological concept
of the " law of nature "—a concept which for centuries
exercised a profound influence on the development of inter-
national law.i Among the early writers who made important
contributions to the infant science of the law of nations were
Vittoria (1480-1546), who was Professor of Theology in the
University of Salamanca, Belli (1502-1575), an Italian, Brunus
(1491-1563), a German, Fernando Vasquez de Menchaca
(1512-1569), a Spaniard, Ayala (1548-1584), a jurist of Spanish
extraction, Suarez (1548-1617), a great Spanish Jesuit, and
Gentilis (1552-1608), an Italian who became Professor of Civil
Law at Oxford, and who is frequently regarded as the founder
of a systematic law of nations.^ The writings of these early
jurists reveal significantly that one major preoccupation of
sixteenth century international law was the law of warfare
between States, and in this connection it may be noted that by
the fifteenth century the European Powers had begun to
maintain standing armies, a practice which naturally caused
uniform usages and practices of war to evolve.
By general acknowledgment the greatest of the early writers
on international law was the Dutch scholar, jurist, and
diplomat, Grotius (1583-1645), whose systematic treatise on
the subject De Jure Belli ac Pads (The Law of War and Peace)
first appeared in 1625. On account of this treatise, Grotius
1 See below, pp. 22-34.
* Of particular importance was the contribution of the so-called " school
"
of Spanish writers, including Suarez and Ayala, mentioned above. In their
works one finds powerfully expressed the concepts of the universal validity of
a law of nations, and of the subjection of all States to a higher law, which
influenced jurists in succeeding centuries. The influence of scholars and
writers in Eastern Europe such as Paulus Vladimiri (1371-1435) of the Uni-
versity of Cracow, should also not be overlooked. For discussion of the
writings of Vittoria and Suarez, see Bemice Hamilton, Political Thought in
Sixteenth Century Spain (1963).
40. 10 Part 1.
—
International Law in General
has sometimes been described as the " father of the law of
nations ", although it is maintained by some that such a
description is incorrect on the grounds that his debt to the
writings of Gentilis is all too evident^ and that in point of time
he followed writers such as BelU, Ayala and others mentioned
above. Indeed both Gentilis and Grotius owed much to their
precursors.
Nor is it exact to affirm that in De Jure Belli ac Pads will
be found all the international law that existed in 1625. It
cannot, for example, be maintained that Grotius dealt fully
with the law and practice of his day as to treaties, or that his
coverage of the rules and usages of warfare was entirely com-
prehensive.2 Besides, De Jure Belli ac Pads was not primarily
or exclusively a treatise on intemational law, as it embraced
numerous topics of legal science, and touched on problems
of philosophic interest. Grotius's historical pre-eminence
rests rather on his continued inspirational appeal as the creator
of the first adequate comprehensive framework of the modem
science of intemational law.
In his book, as befitted a diplomat of practical experience,
and a lawyer who had practised, Grotius dealt repeatedly with
the actual customs followed by the States of his day. At the
same time Grotius was a theorist who espoused certain doc-
trines. One central doctrine in his treatise was the acceptance
of the " law of nature " as an independent source of rules of
the law of nations, apart from custom and treaties. The
Grotian "law of nature" was to some extent a secularised
version, being founded primarily on the dictates of reason,
on the rational nature of men as social human beings, and in
that form it was to become a potent source of inspiration to
later jurists.
Grotius has had an abiding influence upon intemational law
and intemational lawyers, although the extent of this influence
has fluctuated at diffierent periods, and his actual impact upon
^ As to the influence of Gentilis on Grotius, see Fujio Ito, Rivista Inter-
nationale di Filosofia del Diritto, July-October 1964, pp. 621-627.
For a modern treatment of the laws and usages of war in the later Middle
Ages, see M. H. Keen, The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (1965);
this may be usefully read in the light of what Grotius wrote.
41. Chap. 1
.
—
Nature, Origins and Basis of International Law 1
1
the practice of States was never so considerable as is tradition-
ally represented. While it would be wrong to say that his
views were always treated as being of compelling authority
—
frequently they were the object of criticism—nevertheless his
principal work, De Jure Belli ac Pads, was continually relied
upon as a work of reference and authority in the decisions of
Courts, and in the text-books of later writers of standing. Also
several Grotian doctrines have left their mark on, and are
implicit in the character of modern international law, namely,
the distinction between just and unjust war,^ the recognition
of the rights and freedoms of the individual, the doctrine of
qualified neutrality, the idea of peace, and the value of periodic
conferences between the rulers of States.
ITie history of the law of nations during the two centuries
after Grotius was marked by the final evolution of the modern
State-system in Europe, a process greatly influenced by the
Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 marking the end of the Thirty
Years' War, and by the development from usage and practice
of a substantial body of new customary rules. Even relations
and intercourse by treaty or otherwise between European and
Asian governments or communities contributed to the forma-
tion of these rules. Moreover the science of international law
was further enriched by the writings and studies of a number
of great jurists. Side by side there proceeded naturally a kind
of action and reaction between the customary rules and the
works of these great writers; not only did their systematic
treatment of the subject provide the best evidence of the rules,
but they suggested new rules or principles where none had yet
emerged from the practice of States. The influence of these
great jurists on the development of international law was
considerable, as can be seen from their frequent citation by
national courts during the nineteenth century and even up to
the present time.
The most outstanding writers of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries following the appearance of Grotius's
treatise were Zouche (1590-1660), Professor of Civil Law at
^ Cf. Joan D. Tooke, The Just War in Aquinas and Grotius (1965).
42. 12 Part 1.
—
International Law in General
Oxford and an Admiralty Judge, Pufendorf (1632-1694),
Professor at the University of Heidelberg, Bynkershoek
(1673-1743), a Dutch jurist, Wolff (1679-1754), a German
jurist and philosopher, who constructed an original, systematic
methodology of international law and the law of nature,
Moser (1701-1795), a German Professor of Law, von Martens
(1756-1821), also a German Professor of Law, and Vattel
(1714-1767), a Swiss jurist and diplomat, who was greatly
influenced by the writings of Wolff, and who perhaps of these
seven men proved to have the greatest influence. In the
eighteenth century, there was a growing tendency among
jurists to seek the rules of international law mainly in custom
and treaties, and to relegate to a minor position the " law of
nature ", or reason, as a source of principles. This tendency
was extremely marked, for instance, in the case of Bynkershoek's
writings and found expression particularly also in the works of
Moser, and von Martens. There were, however, jurists who at
the same time clung to the traditions of the law of nature,
either almost wholly, or coupled with a lesser degree of em-
phasis upon custom and treaties as components of international
law. As contrasted with these adherents to the law of
nature, writers such as Bynkershoek who attached primary or
major weight to customary and treaty rules were known as
" positivists ".
In the nineteenth century international law further expanded.
This was due to a number of factors which fall more properly
within the scope of historical studies, for instance, the further
rise of powerful new States both within and outside Europe,
the expansion of European civilisation overseas, the modernisa-
tion of world transport, the greater destructiveness of modern
warfare, and the influence of new inventions. All these made
it urgent for the international society of States to acquire a
system of rules which would regulate in an ordered manner
the conduct of international affairs. There was a remarkable
development during the century in the law of war and neutrality,
and the great increase in adjudications by international arbitral
tribunals following the Alabama Claims Award of 1872 pro-
vided an important new source of rules and principles. Besides,
43. Chap. 1.
—
Nature, Origins and Basis of International Law 13
States commenced to acquire the habit of negotiating general
treaties in order to regulate affairs of mutual concern. Nor
was the nineteenth century without its great writers on inter-
national law. The works of jurists belonging to a number of
different nations contributed significantly to the scientific
treatment of the subject ; among them were Kent (American),
Wheaton (American), De Martens (Russian), Kluber (German),
Phillimore (British), Calvo (Argentinian), Fiore (Italian),
Pradier-Fodere (French), BluntschU (German), and Hall
(British). The general tendency of these writers was to
concentrate on existing practice, and to discard the concept of
the " law of nature ", although not abandoning recourse to
reason and justice where, in the absence of custom or treaty
rules, they were called upon to speculate as to what should
be the law.
Other important developments have taken place in the
twentieth century. The Permanent Court of Arbitration was
established by the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907. The
Permanent Court of International Justice was set up in 1921
as an authoritative international judicial tribunal, and was
succeeded in 1946 by the present International Court of
Justice. Then there has been the creation of permanent
international organisations whose functions are in effect those
of world government in the interests of peace and human
welfare, such as the League of Nations and its present successor
—the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation,
the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and others
referred to in Chapter 19 of this book. And perhaps most
remarkable of all has been the widening scope of international
law to cover not only every kind of economic or social interest
affecting States, but also the fundamental rights and freedoms
of individual human beings.
It is characteristic of the latter-day evolution of international
law that the influence of writers has tended to dechne, and
that modern international lawyers have come to pay far more
regard to practice and to decisions of tribunals . Yet the spelling
out of rules of international law from assumed trends of past
and current practice cannot be carried too far. This was
44. 14 Part 1.
—
International Law in General
shown at the Geneva Conference of 1958 on the Law of the
Sea, and at the Vienna Conferences of 1961, 1963, and 1968-
1969 on, respectively, Diplomatic Relations, Consular Relations,
and the Law of Treaties, when in a number of instances an
apparent weight of practice in favour of a proposed rule of
international law did not necessarily result in its general ac-
ceptance by the States represented at the Conferences. Never-
theless, " natural law " writers have ceased to command the
same degree of influence as formerly, perhaps because of the
emergence of a number of States outside Europe and which
did not inherit doctrines of Christian civihsation such as that
of " natural law ". These new States (in particular the Afro-
Asian group) have challenged certain of the basic principles
of international law, stemming from its early European evolu-
tion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.^ Moreover,
many long-standing rules and concepts of international law have
been subjected to severe strains and stresses under the impact
of modern developments in technology, of modern economic
exigencies, and—not least—the more enhghtened sociological
views and attitudes which prevail today. Above all, there is
the present unprecedented political state of aff"airs, for which
the traditional system of international law was not devised,
namely, the division of the world into global and regional blocs,
the existence of a " third world " of numerous newly-emerged
States, undeveloped economically and technologically (and
sometimes possessing unstable governments), and the numerous
groupings and associations into which States have formed them-
selves. Apart from this, international law is now called
upon to find new rules to govern the fields of nuclear and
thermonuclear energy, and scientific research generally, to
regulate state activities in the upper atmosphere and in the
* Reference should be made in this connection to the important activities
in the field of study of international law, of the Asian-African Legal Consul-
tative Committee, representing the Afro-Asian group of States. Certain
sessions of this Committee have been attended by an observer from the
International Law Commission, which has a standing invitation to send an
observer. For the impact upon international law of the new Asian and other
States, see Syatauw, Some Newly Established Asian States and the Development
of International Law (1961), and S. P. Sinha, New Nations and the Law of
Nations (1967).
45. Chap. 1 .
—
Nature, Origins and Basis ofInternational Law 1
5
cosmos, to protect and control the environment of man, and
to establish a new legal regime for the exploration and ex-
ploitation of the resources of the seabed beyond the limits of
national sovereignty.
Present-Day Status of International Law
International law, as we know it today, is that indispensable
body of rules regulating for the most part the relations between
States, without which it would be virtually impossible for them
to have steady and frequent intercourse. It is in fact an
expression of the necessity of their mutual relationships. In
the absence of some system of international law, the inter-
national society of States could not enjoy the benefits of trade
and commerce, of exchange of ideas, and of normal routine
communication.
The last half-century witnessed a greater impetus to the
development of international law than at any previous stage
of its history. This was a natural result of the growing inter-
dependence of States, and of the vastly increased intercourse
between them due to all kinds of inventions that overcame the
difficulties of time, space, and intellectual communication.
New rules had to be found or devised to meet innumerable
new situations. Whereas previously the international society
of States could rely on the relatively slow process of custom^
for the formation of rules of international law, modem
exigencies called for a speedier method of law-making. As
a result, there came into being the great number of multilateral
treaties of the last seventy years laying down rules to be observed
by the majority of States — " law-making treaties " or
" international legislation ", as they have been called. Apart
from these " law-making treaties " there was a remarkable
development in the use of arbitration to settle international
disputes, and at the same time the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice came by its decisions to make an important
contribution to the growth of international law. The mantle
^ Although treaties had nevertheless played an important role in the
mediaeval law of nations ; cf. Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International
Law (5th Edition, 1967), pp. 6-7.
46. 16 Part 1.
—
International Law in General
of the Permanent Court has now descended upon its successor,
the International Court of Justice. Nor should there be
forgotten the work of codifying and progressively developing
international law at present being sponsored by the United
Nations with the expert aid of a body known as the International
Law Commission, created in 1947.^
It is true that in some quarters there is a tendency to dis-
parage international law, even to the extent of questioning its
existence and value. There are two main reasons for this :
—
{a) the generally held view that the rules of international
law are designed only to maintain peace; and
{b) ignorance of the vast number of rules which, unUke
the rules deaUng with " high policy ", that is, issues of
peace or war, receive little publicity.
Actually, however, a considerable part of international law
is not concerned at all with issues of peace or war. In practice,
legal advisers to Foreign Offices and practising international
lawyers daily apply and consider settled rules of international
law deahng with an immense variety of matters. Some of
these important matters which arise over and over again in
practice are claims for injuries to citizens abroad, the reception
or deportation of aliens, extradition, questions of nationality,
and the interpretation of the numerous complicated treaties or
arrangements now entered into by most States with reference
to commerce, finance, transport, civil aviation, nuclear energy,
and many other subjects.
Breaches of international law resulting in wars or conflicts
^ The Statute of the Commission was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on November 21, 1947; for text of Statute, see U.N. Year
Book. 1947-1948, 211, or the handbook. The Work of the International Law
Commission (1967), pp. 55-60. The Commission, consisting originally of
fifteen members, appointed in their individual capacity as experts, first met in
1949. Subjects dealt with by the Commission since 1949 have included the
basic rights and duties of States, offences against the peace and security of
mankind (the Nuremberg principles), reservations to treaties, the regime of the
high seas, the law of treaties, arbitral procedure, nationality, statelessness, inter-
national criminal jurisdiction, the definition of aggression, State responsibility,
diplomatic and consular practice, succession of States and Governments, and
relations between States and inter-governmental organisations. The Com-
mission now consists of twenty-five members.
47. Chap. 1.
—
Nature, Origins and Basis of International Law 17
of aggression tend to receive adverse attention, and from them
the public incorrectly deduces the complete breakdown of
international law. The answer to this criticism is that even
in wartime there is no absolute breakdown of international law,
as many rules affecting the relations of belligerents inter se or
with neutrals are of vital importance and to a large extent are
strictly observed. Another consideration is worth men-
tioning. Even in the case of war or armed conflict, the States
involved seek to justify their position by reference to inter-
national law. This applies also in " crisis " situations,
short of war; for example, during the Cuban missile crisis of
1962, the United States relied to some extent on the Inter
-
American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of 1947 as a legal
basis for its " selective " blockade of Cuba.
It is possible to argue further that in municipal law (that
is. State law), breaches, disturbances and crimes take place,
but no one denies the existence of law to which all citizens are
subject. Similarly, the recurrence of war and armed conflicts
between States does not necessarily involve the conclusion that
international law is non-existent.
Finally, it is incorrect to regard the maintenance of peace
as the entire purpose of international law. As one authority
well said,^ its raison d'etre is rather to
" form a framework within which international relations can
be conducted and to provide a system of rules facilitating
international intercourse ; and as a matter of practical necessity
it has, and will, operate as a legal system even when wars are
frequent ".
The same authority goes on to say:
—
" It is, of course, true that the ideal of international law must
be a perfect legal system in which war will be entirely eliminated,
just as the ideal of municipal law is a Constitution and legal
system so perfect, that revolution, revolt, strikes, etc., can never
take place and every man's rights are speedily, cheaply, and
infallibly enforced ".
Lapses from such ideals are as inevitable as the existence of
law itself.
^ W. E. (Sir Eric) Beckett in Law Quarterly Review (1939), Vol. 55, at p. 265.
48. 18 Part 1.
—
International Law in General
2. —Theories as to Basis of International Law
Much theoretical controversy has been waged over the
nature and basis of international law.
Some discussion of the theories should help to throw light
on many important aspects of the subject.
Is International Law True Law ?
One theory which has enjoyed wide acceptance is that
international law is not true law, but a code of rules of conduct
of moral force only.^ The EngUsh writer on jurisprudence,
Austin, must be regarded as foremost among the protagonists
of this theory. Others who have questioned the true legal
character of international law have been Hobbes, Pufendorf,
and Bentham.
Austin's attitude towards international law was coloured
by his theory of law in general. According to the Austinian
theory, law was the result of edicts issuing from a determinate
sovereign legislative authority. Logically, if the rules concerned
did not in ultimate analysis issue from a sovereign authority,
which was pohtically superior, or if there were no sovereign
authority, then the rules could not be legal rules, but rules of
moral or ethical vaUdity only. Applying this general theory to
international law, as there was no visible authority with
legislative power or indeed with any determinate power over
the society of States, and as in his time the rules of international
law were almost exclusively customary, Austin concluded that
international law was not true law but " positive international
morahty " only, analogous to the rules binding a club or
society. He further described it as consisting of " opinions
or sentiments current among nations generally ".^
The reply to Austin's view is as follows:
—
(a) Modern historical jurisprudence has discounted the force
of his general theory of law. It has been shown that in many
communities without a formal legislative authority, a system
^ For an excellent authoritative treatment of the problems concerning the
legality of international law, see Dennis Lloyd, The Idea of Law (Penguin
revised Edition, 1970), pp. 37-40, 186-90, 224-5, and 238-9.
^ See Lectures on Jurisprudence (4th Edition, revised and edited by R.
Campbell, 1873), Vol. I, at pp. 187-188, 222.
49. Chap. 1 .
—
Nature, Origins and Basis ofInternational Law 19
of law was in force and being observed, and that such law did
not differ in its binding operation from the law of any State
with a true legislative authority.
{b) Austin's views, however right for his time, are not true
of present-day international law. In the last half-century, a
great mass of " international legislation " has come into
existence as a result of law-making treaties and Conventions,
and the proportion of customary rules of international law
has correspondingly diminished.^ Even if it be true that
there is no determinate sovereign legislative authority in the
international field, the procedure for formulating these rules of
"international legislation" by means of international con-
ferences or through existing international organs is practically
as settled, if not as efficient, as any State legislative procedure.
(c) Questions of international law are always treated as
legal questions by those who conduct international business
in the various Foreign Offices, or through the various existing
international administrative bodies. In other words, the
authoritative agencies responsible for the maintenance of
international intercourse do not consider international law
as merely a moral code. As Sir Frederick Pollock has well
said :
—
" If international law were only a kind of morality, the
framers of State papers concerning foreign policy would throw
all their strength on moral argument. But, as a matter of
fact, this is not what they do. They appeal not to the general
feeling of moral Tightness, but to precedents, to treaties, and to
opinions of specialists. They assume the existence among
statesmen and publicists of a series of legal as distinguished
from moral obligations in the affairs of nations ".^
Certain countries indeed in practice expressly treat inter-
national law as possessing the same force as the ordinary law
^ Indeed a significant number of customary rules of international law have
now been formulated as rules in multilateral Conventions; as, e.g., in the
case of the four Geneva Conventions of April 28-29, 1958, on the Law of the
Sea, and the three Vienna Conventions of April 18, 1961, on Diplomatic
Relations, of April 24, 1963, on Consular Relations, and of May 22, 1969,
on the Law of Treaties, codifying the customary rules as to diplomatic and
consular privileges and immunities, and as to the law and practice of treaties.
* Pollock, Oxford Lectures (1890), p. 18,
50. 20 Part 1.
—
International Law in General
binding their citizens. Under the Constitution of the United
States of America, for example, treaties are " the supreme
law of the land " (Article VI, §2). Judges of the United States
Supreme Court—the highest Court of the land—have repeatedly
recognised the constitutional validity of international law.
In one case,^ Marshall, C.J., declared that an Act of Congress
" ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations
if any other possible construction remains ". In another
case,^ Gray, J., made the following remarks:
—
" International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained
and administered by the Courts of Justice of appropriate
jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it
are duly presented for their determination ".
Moreover, the legally binding force of international law
has been asserted again and again by the nations of the world
in international conference. To take one illustration, the
Charter creating the United Nations Organisation, drawn up at
San Francisco in 1945, is both explicitly and implicitly based
on the true legality of international law. This is also clearly
expressed in the terms of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice, annexed to the Charter, where the Court's function
is stated as being " to decide in accordance with international
law such disputes as are submitted to it " (see Article 38).
In connection with the Austinian theory, it is useful to
bear in mind the difference between rules of international law
proper, and the rules of " international comity ". The former
are legally binding, while the latter are rules of goodwill and
civility, founded on the moral right of each State to receive
courtesy from others. The essence of these usages of " comity
"
is thus precisely what Austin attributed to international law
proper, namely a purely moral quality.^ Non-observance of a
rule of international law may give rise to a claim by one State
1 The Charming Betsy (1804), 2 Cranch 64, at p. 1 18.
» The Paquete Habana (1900), 175 U.S. 677, at p. 700.
* An illustration of such a usage of courtesy was the privilege accorded,
within certain limits, to diplomatic envoys to import, free of customs dues,
goods intended for their own private use. This courtesy privilege has now
become a matter of legal duty upon the State of accreditation under Article
36 (1) (b) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961.
