Essays On Some Disputed Questions In Modern International Law

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Excerpt from Essays on Some Disputed Questions in Modern: International Law Expedition of 1882, refers in eulogistic terms to the ably planned and well executed operations whereby our fleet seized the Suez Canal. He then adds, The inference to Americans is Obvious, that the neutrality Of any canal joining the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans will be maintained, if at all, by the nation which can place and keep the strongest ships at each extremity. NO doubt the gallant Commander is right, so far as physical force is concerned; but, with regard to the legal aspect Of the case, I have contended that all the states interested in the canal must concur in its neutralization, before the status of neutrality can be conferred upon it. Here again my view receives con firmation from current authority; for I see in the news papers that the International Peace and Arbitration Conference, assembled at Berne early in the present month, resolved that a guarantee Of all the maritime powers was necessary in order to effect the neutralization of interoceanic canals. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

Modern international law is widely understood as an autonomous system of binding legal rules. Nevertheless, this claim to autonomy is far from uncontroversial. International lawyers have faced recurrent scepticism as to both the reality and efficacy of the object of their study and practice. For the most part, this scepticism has focussed on international law's peculiar institutional structure, with the absence of centralised organs of legislation, adjudication and enforcement, leaving international legal rules seemingly indeterminate in the conduct of international politics. Perception of this 'institutional problem' has therefore given rise to a certain disciplinary angst or self-defensiveness, fuelling a need to seek out functional analogues or substitutes for the kind of institutional roles deemed intrinsic to a functioning legal system. The author of this book believes that this strategy of accommodation is, however, deeply problematic. It fails to fully grasp the importance of international law's decentralised institutional form in securing some measure of accountability in international relations. It thus misleads through functional analogy and, in doing so, potentially exacerbates legitimacy deficits. There are enough conceptual weaknesses and blindspots in the legal-theoretical models against which international law is so frequently challenged to show that the perceived problem arises more in theory, than in practice.

This volume of essays addresses some of the most significant issues of contemporary international law. It particularly focuses on questions relating to international humanitarian law, the law of the sea, human rights, the use of force, international environmental law, and the settlement of international disputes. Recent developments in some other issues of international law such as State immunity and State responsibility are also dealt with. The Work contains a number of articles in French and is offered as a tribute to the prominent Iranian Professor of International Law, Djamchid Momtaz, on the occasion of his 75th birthday.

The essays contained in this volume deal both with the law concerning resort to force (jus ad bellum) and the law which regulates the conduct of hostilities once the decision to resort to force has been taken (jus in bello). The collection looks at Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and shift towards the interpretation of decisions of the Security Council rather than the reliance on the law of self-defence in assessing the legality or illegality of a state's resort to force. Also addressed are questions of whether international law permits the pre-emptive use of force and humanitarian intervention. The collection also contributes to the debates surrounding the law on the conduct of hostilities (the laws of war, properly so called), including intense debate over whether nuclear weapons could ever lawfully be employed, whether there is a role for belligerent reprisals in modern international law, the system for the prosecution of war crimes and the duties of the belligerent occupant.