Humanitarian Intervention Under International Law

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 1985, Pages 357-418

  Verwey, W D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84974232180     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X00011062     Document Type: Article

References (506)

1. Ambassador Kirkpatrick in the Security Council; International Herald Tribune, 29/30 October 1983.
2. Lichtenstein in the Security Council; idem.
3. For an analysis of the terms ‘sources’ and ‘recognized manifestations of international law’ see M. Bos, ‘The Recognized Manifestations of International Law: a New Theory of ‘Sources’ ’, 20 GYIL (1977);
4. ‘The Identification of Custom in International Law’, 25 GYIL (1982).
5. cf., e.g., J.P.L. Fonteyne, ‘Forcible Self-help by States to Protect Human Rights: Recent Views from the United Nations’, in R.B. Lillich, ed., Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations (Charlottesville 1973) p. 206;
6. P.A. Massouridis, Le principe de non-intervention en droit international moderne (1968) p. 35;
7. T. Mitrovic, ‘Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs of States’, in M. Sahovic, ed., Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation (Belgrade 1972) p. 251.
8. On the other hand, there are those who deny that Article 2(7) would address itself to Member States, e.g., A. Gerlach, Die Intervention. Versuch einer Definition (Hamburg 1967) p. 44;
9. H. Kelsen, Principles of International Law (New York 1966) p. 295;
10. R. Rosenstock, ‘The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations: a Survey’, 65 AJIL (1971) p. 713
11. The apparent intention of the drafters in San Francisco was, indeed, to prevent ‘that the Organization could intervene directly in the domestic economic, social and cultural arrangements of Member States’
12. L.M. Goodrich and E. Hambro, Charter of the United Nations (Boston 1946) p. 72 (italics supplied). The dispute has played a role not only in the literature, but also in UN debates; the countries of Eastern Europe and the Third World taking the first, Western countries taking the second view.
13. Cf., for example, UN Docs. A/AC.119/SR 25, pp. 8, 26.
14. M. Akehurst, A Modern Introduction to International Law (London 1977) p. 190.
15. L. Oppenheim, H. Lauterpacht, International Law (London 1955) pp. 415–416.
16. Similarly, see J.G. Starke, Introduction to International Law (London 1972) p. 111 note 2.
17. Goodrich and Hambro, Introduction to International Law, n.5, p. 120;
18. G.J. Jones, The United Nations and the Domestic Jurisdiction of States (Cardiff 1979) p. 31;
19. A. Verdross and B. Simma, Universelles Volkerrecht, Theorie und Praxis (Berlin 1976) p. 156.
20. Gerlach, Universelles Volkerrecht, Theorie und Praxis, n.5, p. 177;
21. L.M. Goodrich, The United Nations (New York 1959) p. 79.
22. UN Doc. A/AC.I19/SR 32.
23. Cf., Rosenstock, UN Doc. A/AC.I19/SR 32, n.5, p. 713.
24. GA Res. 2131 (XX), fifth preambular para.
25. Idem eighth preambular para.
26. This interpretation was, of course, hotly contested by the other delegations: cf., P.H. Houben, ‘Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States’, 61 AJIL (1967).
27. Indeed, during the debates on the Declaration in 1970, the principle of political independence of States served as a bridge between opposing views on the question of intervention under the Charter, when the US delegation agreed that the non-violent coercion of one State by another should also (henceforth) be considered to be prohibited by the terms of the Charter; to the extent, that is, ‘that some way had to be found to cover economic and political pressures of sufficient magnitude to affect political independence’ (Rosenstock, AJIL, n. 5, pp. 726–29).
28. W. Friedmann, ‘Intervention in Civil War and the Role of International Law’, in R.A. Falk, ed., The Vietnam War and International Law (Princeton 1969) p. 153.
29. The argument would run as follows. Since the Declaration was adopted unanimously, the question whether the UNGA is entitled to interpret the Charter with authentic effect does not arise in this case. For, in default of conclusive statements to the contrary, each member State may, by reference to its affirmative vote, be held to have individually given its official approval to this interpretation of Charter principles embodied in the Declaration. The principle of estoppel operates with respect to the vote: cf., W.D. Verwey, ‘The United Nations and the Least Developed Countries: an Exploration in the Grey Zones of International Law’, in J. Makarczyk, ed., Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs (The Hague 1984) para. 12, especially notes 70 and 71, and the references to the theories of Bleicher, Cheng, and Higgins made there.
30. cf., W.D. Verwey, ‘Decolonization and Ius ad Bellum: a Case Study on the Impact of the United Nations General Assembly on International Law’, in R. Akker-man et al., eds., Declarations on Principles. A Quest for Universal Peace (Leyden 1977) p. 121 et seq.
31. Literal interpretation of certain phrases like ‘violent overthrow of the regime of another State’ and ‘the use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity’ would suggest that non- violent measures aimed at realizing these purposes would not constitute intervention. Some delegations drew attention to the fact, however, that the eventual text resulted from negotiations ‘at different sessions and between different groups of members with the result of overlapping, inconsistencies in wording, lacunae and redundancies… In particular, any argumentation a contrario–already in any case a dubious process of reasoning in the interpretation of international legal documents–would be inadmissible in respect of the terms of the present draft declaration’
32. Cf., in line with the delegate of Ceylon (Pinto), the delegate of the Netherlands (Mr. Houben); Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Report on the 25th Session of the UNGA, No. 98 (1971) 481
33. Art. 8, 70 UNTS 237.
34. Art. 3, 233 UNTS 199.
35. Art. 3, 479 UNTS 39.
36. For detailed accounts of the history of the principle of non-intervention in the Americas see, for an American view, A.J. Thomas and A.V. Wynen Thomas, Non-intervention; the Law and its Impact in the Americas (Dallas 1956);
37. for a Latin American view, C. Grossman, Het beginsel van non-interventie in de Organisatie van Amerikaanse Staten vanuit een Latijns-Amerikaans gezichtspunt (Amsterdam 1980).
38. Arts. 18–20, 119 UNTS 3. The Latin American States intended to circumscribe the principle of non-interference in such a comprehensive way that problems of interpretation could not arise and weaken the prohibition of intervention;
39. cf., Grossman, UNTS, n.24, pp. 181–203.
40. E.g., the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung (1955), the Conference of Non-aligned States in Cairo (1964), and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki 1975). Art. 6 of the Final Act of Helsinki reads: ‘The participating States will refrain from any intervention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of another participating State, regardless of their mutual relations… They will likewise in all circumstances refrain from any other act of military, or of political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by another participating State of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind’ (paras 1, 3).
41. Rosenstock, Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki 1975), n.5, p. 727.
42. UN Doc. A/AC. 125/SR 114 (1970; Sinclair).
43. Cf., also, W. Friedmann, ‘Intervention and International Law’, 25 Internationale Spectator (1971) pp. 42, 47;
44. R.J. Vincent, Non-intervention and International Order (Princeton 1974) p. 8.
45. Cf., for example, E.R.C. van Bogaert, Volkenrecht (Brussels 1973) p. 142;
46. Goodrich and Hambro, Volkenrecht, n.5, p. 120;
47. J. de Louter, Het stedig volkenrecht (The Hague 1910) p. 251;
48. H.F. van Panhuys, Het recht in de wereldgemeenschap (Groningen 1974) p. 90;
49. I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Volkerrecht (Cologne 1980) p. 272;
50. J. Westlake, International Law (Cambridge 1910) pp. 234–5.
51. According to Verdross and Simma, International Law, n. 8: ‘jede Einmischungsart, also auch durch Empfehlungen, ist untersagt’.
52. According to Friedmann, also in socialist countries the official view is that ‘States shall refrain from any direct or indirect intervention under any pretext in the internal or external affairs of another State. In particular, any interference or pressure by one State or group of States for the purpose of changing the social or political order in another State shall be prohibited’
53. W. Friedmann, ‘Intervention, Civil War and the Role of International Law’, in L. Gross, ed., International Law in the 20th Century (Princeton 1969) p. 725 (italics added).
54. J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations (Oxford 1963) p. 402.
55. J.N. Moore, The Control of Foreign Intervention in Internal Conflict’, 9 VJIL (1969) p. 213.
56. J. Meuffels, De Verenigde Naties en de handhaving van de vrede (Groningen 1980) pp. 190–1.
57. Cf., Brierly, De Verenigde Naties en de handhaving van de vrede, n.30, p. 402;
58. L. Cavare, Le droit international public positif (Paris 1969) p. 628;
59. J.P.L. Fonteyne, The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention: its Current Validity Under the UN Charter’, Cal. WILJ (1974) p. 204;
60. Friedmann, WILJ, n. 28, pp. 44-5;
61. G. von Glahn, Law Among Nations (London 1970) p. 163;
62. H.B. Jacobini, International Law; A Text (Homewood 1963) pp. 261-2;
63. Kelsen, International Law; A Text, n.5, p. 64;
64. E. Menzel, Volkerrecht (Munich 1962) p. 213;
65. Q.D. Nguyen, Droit international public (Paris 1975) p. 761;
66. A. Ross, A Textbook of International Law (London 1947) p. 185;
67. C. Rousseau, Droit international public (Paris 1980) p. 37;
68. M. Sibert, Trade de droit international public (Paris 1951) p. 341;
69. Skubiszewski (see n.58 infra) p. 757;
70. H.J. Strupp and K. Schlochauer, Worterbuch des Volkerrechts (Berlin 1960) p. 145;
71. A. V. Wynen Thomas and A.J. Thomas, The Concept of Aggression in International Law (Dallas 1972) p. 71;
72. Vincent, The Concept of Aggression in International Law, n.28, pp. 8, 13;
73. M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law (Washington 1965) p. 321.
74. Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, Digest of International Law, n.7, p. 305.
75. E. de Vattel, ‘Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqués a la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains’ (1758), in Classics of International Law (Washington 1916) p. 37;
76. cf., also, P.H. Winfield, ‘The History of Intervention in International Law’, 3 BYIL (1922) p. 134.
77. Thomas and Thomas, BYIL, n. 33, p. 71.
78. Thomas and Thomas, BYIL, n. 24, pp. 71–72.
79. Dictionnaire de la terminologie du droit international (Sirey 1960) p. 348;
80. H.S. Fairley, ‘State Actors, Humanitarian Intervention and International Law: Reopening Pandora’s Box’, 10 GJICL (1980) p. 32 note 8;
81. L.M. Goodrich, The United Nations (New York 1959) p. 79;
82. Kelsen, The United Nations, n.5, p. 75.
83. This probably also applies to a number of German authors who, in the track of von Liszt and Fleischmann (Das Volkerrecht 1925) use the word ‘Gewalt like E. Sauer (System des Volkerrechts 1952) who writes: ‘Intervention richtet sich gegen den fremden Staat selbst und bezweckt diesen mittels Gewaltanwendung zur Abwehr eines drohenden Unrechts oder zur Durchfuhrung eines angeblichen Anspruchs zu bestimmen’
84. Cf., similarly, A. Verdross, Volkerrecht (Wien 1964) p. 228;
85. in contrast to F. Bleiber, Handworterbuch der Diplomatic und Aussen-politik (Darmstadt 1959) p. 126, who refers to ‘Ausiibung von Druck oder Gewalt’ (italics supplied).
86. With respect to the phrase in Art. 2(4) of the Charter, Roling observes: ‘If obvious superior power is present, the weaker party is bound to reckon with this fact. This already constitutes a menace, although no explicit threat is involved. But it is not such a menace arising from the facts that is referred to in Art. 2(4)’;
87. B.V.A. Roling, ‘Aspects of the Ban on Force’, in H. Meyers and E.W. Vierdag, eds., Essays on International Law and Relations in Honour of A.J.P. Tammes; Special Issue XXIV, NILR (1977) p. 250.
88. J.H. Leurdijk, ‘Civil War and Intervention in International Law’, in NILR, n. 39, p. 143.
89. U. Schwartz, Confrontation and Intervention in the Modern World (New York 1970) p. 93.
90. Cf., also, M. Halpern, ‘The Morality and Politics of Intervention’, in J.N. Rosenau, ed., International Aspects of Civil Strife (Princeton 1964) p. 251;
91. Moore, International Aspects of Civil Strife, n. 31, p. 213;
92. J.N. Rosenau, ‘The Concept of Intervention’, 22 Journal of International Affairs (1968) p. 165.
93. R. Redslob, Trade de droit des gens (1950) p. 126.
94. Similarly, for example, F. Berber, Lehrbuch des Volkerrechts (Munich 1975) p. 186;
95. G. Dahm, Volkerrecht (Stuttgart 1958) p. 216 et seq.;
96. Grossman, Volkerrecht, n.24, p. 183 and see his list of Latin American authors at p. 397 note 3;
97. W. Wengler, Volkerrecht (Berlin 1964) II p. 1048.
98. Cf., for example, J.P.A. Francois, Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht (Zwolle 1967) p. 682;
99. Kelsen, Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht, n.5, p. 74;
100. Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht, n.7, p. 305;
101. Thomas and Thomas, Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht, n.24, p. 70.
102. For a brief review of this question see Verwey, Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht, n, 17, p. 123 et seq.
103. Advisory Opinion on the Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco, PCIJ Series B No. 4 (1923).
104. Goodrich and Hambro, PCIJ Series B No. 4, n.5, p. 73.
105. Similarly, Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, PCIJ Series B No. 4, n.7, pp. 417–18.
106. Menzel, PCIJ Series B No. 4, n.33, p. 215.
107. Francois, PCIJ Series B No. 4, n.44, p. 644;
108. Dictionnaire, PCIJ Series B No. 4, n.38, p. 349.
109. R. Baxter in Lillich, PCIJ Series B No. 4, n.5, p. 52;
110. A. Manin, ‘L’intervention frangaise au Shaba’, 24 Ann. DI (1978) p. 160;
111. R.D. Margo, ‘Legality of the Entebbe Raid in International Law’, 94 South African LJ (1977) p. 318;
112. Sibert, South African LJ, n.33, p. 343.
113. ‘Willkurmassnahmen’: P. Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Volkerrechts (Basel 1948) p. 262.
114. ‘Arbitrary treatment’: E.C. Stowell, Intervention in International Law (Washington 1921) p. 53.
115. I. Brownlie, ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, in J.N. Moore, ed., Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore 1974) p. 217;
116. ‘Thoughts on Kind-hearted Gunmen’, in R.B. Lillich, ed.;Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations (Charlottesville 1973) p. 140.
117. Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations, n.7, I p. 312.
118. C.F. Amerasinghe, Studies in International Law (Ceylon 1969) p. 127;
119. Fonteyne, Studies in International Law, n.33, p. 259;
120. Fairley, Studies in International Law n.38, p. 32;
121. von Glahn, Studies in International Law, n.33, p. 167;
122. L.F.E. Goldie in Lillich, Studies in International Law, n.5, p. 46;
123. Meuffels, Studies in International Law, n.32, p. 138;
124. M. Sornarajah, ‘Internal Colonialism and Humanitarian Intervention’, 11 Ga. JICL (1981) p. 75;
125. Stowell, JICL, n.53, p. 53;
126. T.V. Thiele, ‘Norms of Intervention in a Decolonized World’, 11 NYUJILP (1978) p. 144;
127. Verdross and Simma, NYUJILP, n.8, p. 548.
128. E.R.C. van Bogaert, Beginselen van het Volkenrecht (Brussels 1958) p. 73;
129. Fonteyne, Beginselen van het Volkenrecht, n.33, p. 205;
130. M. Ganji, International Protection of Human Rights (Paris 1962) p. 9;
131. von Glahn, International Protection of Human Rights, n.33, p. 167;
132. Meuffels, International Protection of Human Rights, n.32, p. 138;
133. G. Scelle, Manuel de droit international public (Paris 1948) p. 823;
134. Verdross, Manuel de droit international public, n.38, p. 127
135. Verdross and Simma, Manuel de droit international public, n.8, p. 584.
136. Van Bogaert, Manuel de droit international public, n.57, p. 73;
137. Brierly, Manuel de droit international public, n.30, p. 403;
138. L. Cavare, Le droit international public positif (Paris 1969) II p. 631;
139. von Glahn, Le droit international public positif, n.33, p. 167;
140. E. Sauer, Grundlehre des Volkerrechts (Cologne 1955) p. 125;
141. K. Skubiszewski, ‘Use of Force by States, Collective Security, Law of War and Neutrality”, in M. Sorensen, ed., Manual of Public International Law (London 1968) p. 758.
142. Cavare, Manual of Public International Law, n.58, II p. 631;
143. Dictionnaire, Manual of Public International Law, n.38, p. 349;
144. L. le Fur, Pricis de droit international public (Paris 1939) p. 195;
145. Goldie in Lillich, Pricis de droit international public, n.54, p. 46;
146. Moore, Pricis de droit international public, n.31, p. 251;
147. Newman in Lillich, Pricis de droit international public, n.54, p. 112;
148. Rousseau, Pricis de droit international public, n.33, IV p. 49;
149. J. Stone, Of Law and Nations (Buffalo 1974) p. 14.
150. J. Arntz, Der Begriff der Friendensbedrohung in Satzung und Praxis der Vereinten Nationen (Berlin 1975) p. 675;
151. S.K. Chatterjee, ‘Some Legal Problems of Support Roles in International Law: Tanzania and Uganda’, 30 ICLQ (1981) p. 763;
152. Fairley, ICLQ, n.38, p. 32;
153. Ganji, ICLQ, n.57, p. 162;
154. von Glahn, ICLQ, n.33, p. 167; Humphrey in Lillich, ICLQ, n.54, p. VII;
155. Humphrey in Lillich, ICLQ, n.54, p. VII;
156. E. Perez-Vera, ‘La protection d’humanite en droit international’, 5 Rev. beige (1969) p. 419;
157. A. Rougier, ‘La theorie de l’intervention d’humanite’, 17 RGDIP (1910) p. 504;
158. Stowell, RGDIP, n.53, p. 53.
159. Cf., in particular, the theories of Rougier, RGDIP, n. 60, on the difference between rights protected under the ‘solidarity nationale’ and the ‘solidarity humaine’;
160. of Perez-Vera, protection des droit d’humanite, n.60, on the difference between ‘protection des droits de l'homme’ and ‘protection des droit d’humanite’.
161. See also the various sets of basic human rights presented by, e.g., R.A. Falk, ‘Responding to Severe Violations’, in Enhancing Global Human Rights (Council on Foreign Relations, New York 1979);
162. Moore, Enhancing Global Human Rights, n.31;
163. N.S. Rodley, ‘Monitoring Human Rights Violations in the 1980’s’, in Enhancing Global Human Rights, idem. It should be observed, for the record, that today very few authors hold that protection of property rights could justify humanitarian intervention;
164. but cf., D.W. Bowett, Self Defence in International Law (New York 1958) p. 89;
165. Manin, Self Defence in International Law, n.52, p. 172.
166. Idem Rougier and Perez-Vera. See also Baxter and Franck in Lillich, Self Defence in International Law, n.54, pp. 53, 63;
167. Fonteyne, Self Defence in International Law, n.33, p. 258; Manin, Self Defence in International Law, n.52, p. 160;
168. Manin, Self Defence in International Law, n.52, p. 160;
169. Meuffels, Self Defence in International Law, n.32, p. 138;
170. Moore, Self Defence in International Law n.61, p. 251;
171. I. von Munch, Volkerrecht (Berlin 1971);
172. Rodley, Volkerrecht, n. 61;
173. G. Weissberg, ‘The Congo Crisis 1964: A Case Study in Humanitarian Intervention’, 12 VJIL (1972) p. 275.
174. See Section 3.2 infra.
175. Cf., for example, R.A. Falk in Lillich, Section 3.2 infra, n.54, p. 68;
176. Flinterman, ‘Humanitarian Intervention or How Long Must the World Stand Idly By?’, 3 NJCM Bulletin (1978) p. 2 note 8;
177. T.M. Franck and N.S. Rodley, ‘After Bangladesh; the Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force’, 67 AJIL (1973) p. 277;
178. Sornarajah, AJIL, n.56, p. 75.
179. Amerasinghe, AJIL n.56, p. 127.
180. Goldie in Lillich, AJIL, n.59, p. 46.
181. Lillich quoted by Fonteyne, AJIL, n.33, p. 260.
182. Formulated on the occasion of the ‘Caroline’ incident in 1837: J.B. Moore, A Digest of International Law (Washington 1906) II p. 409.
183. Fitzmaurice quoted by Margo, A Digest of International Law, n.52, p. 324.
184. see, for example, D.W. Bowett, Self Defence in International Law (New York 1958) p. 88;
185. Meuffels, Self Defence in International Law, n.32, p. 155;
186. R. Payne, ‘Sub-Saharan Africa; the Right of Intervention in the Name of Humanity’, 2 Ga. JICL (1972) p. 85;
187. Moore in Lillich, JICL, n.54, p. 49;
188. Seidl-Hohenveldern, JICL, n.29.
189. Rougier, JICL, n.60, p. 498 et seq.
190. Fonteyne, JICL n.33, p. 261. Lillich also emphasizes this point, where he writes that in the case of humanitarian intervention ‘there is not a connection based upon nationality but upon the need to protect individuals under a certain international law standard’;
191. R.B. Lillich, ‘Forcible Self-help Under International Law’, 22 NWC Rev. (1970) p. 61.
192. cf., Arts. 1(3), 55 and 56, and see further Section 3.2 infra.
193. Grotius, ‘De lure belli ac pads’ (Classics Club, New York 1949) II Ch. 25; de Vattel, Arts. 1(3), n.35, IV paras. 55, 56.
194. Amerasinghe, de Vattel, Arts. 1(3), n.56, p. 127;
195. Brierly, Arts. 1(3), n.30, p. 403;
196. Dictionnaire, Brierly, Arts. 1(3), n.38, p. 349;
197. Fonteyne, Dictionnaire, n.33, p. 205; Fairley, Dictionnaire, n.38, p. 32;
198. Fairley, Dictionnaire, n.38, p. 32;
199. Flinterman, Dictionnaire, n.64, p. 13;
200. Ganji, Dictionnaire, n.57, p. 9;
201. von Glahn, Dictionnaire, n.33, p. 167;
202. Goldie, Humphrey and Samuels in Lillich, Dictionnaire, n.54, pp. 46, VII, 54;
203. von Munch, Dictionnaire, n.62.
204. Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, Dictionnaire, n.7, I p. 312;
205. Sauer, Dictionnaire, n.58, p. 124;
206. Stowell, Dictionnaire, n.53, p. 53;
207. Scelle, Dictionnaire, n.57, p. 823;
208. Thiele, Dictionnaire, n.56, p. 144;.
209. Verdross, Dictionnaire, n.38, p. 127.
210. Rousseau, Dictionnaire, n.54, IV p. 49.
211. Guggenheim, Dictionnaire, n.53, p. 262.
212. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Dictionnaire, n.29.
213. Skubiszewski, Dictionnaire, n.58, pp. 758–9.
214. We shall come back to this infra. The authors in question include M. Akehurst, The Use of Force to Protect Nationals Abroad’, 5 International Relations (1977) p. 9;
215. J.R. d’Angelo, ‘Resort to Force by States to Protect Nationals: the US Rescue Mission to Iran and its Legality Under International Law’, 21 VJIL (1981) p. 492;
216. Francois, VJIL, n.44, pp. 272-3;
217. Lillich, VJIL, n.54, p. XI;
218. Meuffels, VJIL, n.32, p. 138;
219. Payne, VJIL, n.70, p. 94;
220. M. Reisman, Nullity and Revision: the Review and Enforcement of International Judgements and Awards (New Haven 1971) p. 167.
221. It should be observed that quite a number of writers do not identify the beneficiaries and confine themselves to formulations like ‘le droit pour un Etat d’intervenir pour empecher les crimes contre l'humanite commis par un autre Etal’ (le Fur, Nullity and Revision: the Review and Enforcement of International Judgements and Awards, n.59, p.195).
222. D.W. Greig, International Law (1976) p. 880;
223. Margo, International Law, n.52, p. 318.
224. Baxter in Lillich, International Law, n.54, p. 53;
225. Manin, International Law, n.52, p. 160.
226. Brierly, International Law, n.30, p. 403.
227. Cf., for example, Ganji, International Law n.33, pp. 15-16;
228. Flinterman, International Law n.30, pp. 14-15;
229. Lillich quoted in Chatterjee, International Law n.60, p. 762;
230. Reisman, International Law, n.80, p. 187 et seq. We shall return to this in Sections 3.2 and 5 infra.
231. Flinterman, International Law n.30, p. 13.
232. Baxter in Lillich, International Law, n.54, p. 53.
233. Meuffels, International Law, n.32, p. 138;
234. Verdross and Simma, International Law, n.8, p. 584.
235. Cf., for example, Akehurst, International Law n.80, p.9;
236. Brownlie, International Law, in ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, n.54, p. 217;
237. Fairley, International Law n.38, pp. 31-2;
238. Fonteyne, International Law, n.33, p. 205;
239. F. Mirvahabi, ‘Entebbe: Validity of Claims in International Law’, 17 Rev. D. Pen. Mil. Guerre (1978) p. 637;
240. Moore, Rev. D. Pen. Mil. Guerre n.31, p. 261;
241. Stowell, Rev. D. Pen. Mil. Guerre, n.53, p. 53.
242. Manin, Rev. D. Pen. Mil. Guerre n.52, p. 160.
243. Lillich, Rev. D. Pen. Mil. Guerre, n.54, p. XI (italics supplied).
244. Fairley, Rev. D. Pen. Mil. Guerre, n.38, pp. 31–2.
245. Brierly, Rev. D. Pen. Mil. Guerre, n. 30, p. 403.
246. Cf., Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, Rev. D. Pen. Mil. Guerre, n.7, I p. 712 et seq.
247. Quoted by R.B. Lillich, ‘Humanitarian Intervention: A Reply to Ian Brownlie and a Plea for Constructive Alternatives’, in J.N. Moore, ed., Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore 1974) p. 233.
248. Fonteyne, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.33, pp. 205–36, presents a review of the opinions for and against with respect to this question during the pre-UN era.
249. Humphrey in Lillich, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.54, p. VII.
250. von Glahn, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.33, p. 168.
251. ‘Da heute Gewaltanwendung in internationalen Beziehungen verboten ist, ist eine gewaltsame Intervention aus humanitaren Grunden heute sicherlich verboten’ Berber, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.42, I p. 193.
252. Similarly, see Akehurst, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.80, p. 18;
253. Fairley, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.38, p. 38;
254. Franck and Rodley, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.64, p. 302
255. Humphrey in Lillich, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.54, p. VIII;
256. Verdross and Simma, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.8, p. 584.
257. Stone, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.59, p. 27.
258. Brownlie, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.54, p. 219.
259. Cf., also, Akehurst, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.80, p. 3;
260. d’Angelo, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.80, p. 489.
261. UNCIO VI 339 (authentic record in French);
262. E. Jimenez de Arechaga, Derecho constitutional de los Naciones Unidas (Madrid 1958) p. 85;
263. H. Wehberg, ‘L’interdiction du recours a la force. Le principe et les probiemes qui se posent’, 78 Hague Recueil (1951) p. 62.
264. Stone, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.59, pp. 4-8;
265. cf., also, Aggression and World Order (London 1958) pp. 42 et seq., 95–101, together with idem
266. Legal Controls of International Conflict (London 1959) pp. 234 et seq.
267. Skubiszewski, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.58, p. 746; Jimenez de Arechaga, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.105, p. 87.
268. B.V.A. Roling, ‘On the Prohibition of the Use of Force’, in A.R. Blackshield, ed., Legal Change. Essays in Honour of Julius Stone (Sydney 1983) p. 276. See also text at notes 142–44, 178–81 infra.
269. Roling, idem, p. 275
270. Roling, Law and Civil War in the Modern World, n.39, pp. 246–47.
271. R. Higgins, The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations (London 1963) p. 220.
272. Akehurst, The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations, n.80, p. 16; and idem The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations, n.6, p. 240.
273. Roling, The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations, n.39, p. 250.
274. Similarly, I. Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford 1963) p. 364.
275. U. Beyerlin, ‘Die Israelische Befreiungsaktion von Entebbe in Volkerrechtlicher Sicht’, 37 ZvRW (1977) p. 217;
276. D.W. Bowett, ‘The Use of Force in the Protection of Nationals’, 43 Trans. Grotius Soc. IL (1957) p. 113.
277. Charter of the OAS, Art. 20;
278. UNTS 3. Pacific Charter and Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, Art. 4(2);
279. UNTS 23. It is worth noting that during the debates in the Special Committee preparing GA Res. 2625 (XXV), e.g., Czechoslovakia suggested including the phrase ‘integrity or inviolability’;
280. UN Doc. A/AC.119/L.6 (1964).
281. Stone, Legal Controls… UN Doc. A/AC.119/L.6, n.106, p. 235.
282. ‘Force and the Charter in the Seventies’, 2 Syr JIL (1974) p. 1 et seq;
283. D.W. Bowett, ‘The Use of Force for the Protection of Nationals Abroad’, in A. Cassese, ed., The International Regulation of Force: Current Developments (Dordrecht 1985);
284. M. McDougal, ‘Authority to Use Force on the High Seas’, 20 NWC Rev. (1967) pp. 28-9;
285. M. McDougal, ‘Authority to Use Force on the High Seas’, 20 NWC Rev. (1967) pp. 28-9;
286. Reisman, NWC Rev., n.80, p. 844 et seq.
287. ICJ Rep. (1949) p. 35.
288. Cf., Brownlie, ICJ Rep., n.113, p. 265 et seq.
289. Brownlie, ICJ Rep., n.113, pp. 267–8.
290. Cf., also, Brownlie, ICJ Rep., n.54, p. 222;
291. Fonteyne, ICJ Rep., n.33, pp. 243,255;
292. Lillich, ICJ Rep., n.54, p. 59;
293. Meuffels, ICJ Rep., n.32, p.42.
294. UNCIO III 391, 721; VI 335.
295. Stone, Legal Controls… UNCIO III, n.106, p. 235.
296. Akehurst, UNCIO III, n.6, p. 240.
297. R.B. Russell, A History of the United Nations: the Role of the United States (Washington 1958) p. 465.
298. Similarly, Brownlie, A History of the United Nations: the Role of the United States, n.113, p. 268;
299. Fonteyne, A History of the United Nations: the Role of the United States, n.33, p. 243;
300. Meuffels, A History of the United Nations: the Role of the United States, n.32, p. 42;
301. Wehberg, A History of the United Nations: the Role of the United States, n.105, p. 62.
302. UNCIO VI 340 (authentic record in French).
303. L.M. Goodrich et al., Charter of the United Nations (New York 1969) p. 50.
304. Goodrich, Charter of the United Nations, n.124, p. 50.
305. G. Abi-Saab, ‘Wars of National Liberation and the Laws of War’, 3 Anals of International Studies (1972) p. 102.
306. Similarly, I. Sagay, The Legal Status of Freedom Fighters in Africa’, 6 EALR (1973) p. 25.
307. On this development, as well as on the legality of such peoples’ struggles and armed support thereto, see further, B.V.A. Roling, ‘International Law and the Maintenance of Peace’, 4 NYIL (1973) p. 64 et seq.
308. Verwey, NYIL, n.14, p. 121 et seq.
309. Brownlie, Verwey, n.113, p. 281. Cf., also, R.A. Falk, ‘The Beirut Raid and the International Law of Retaliation’, 63 AJIL (1969) p. 429; Higgins, NYIL, n.lll, pp. 217–18.
310. Margo, NYIL, n.52, p. 325.
311. Fonteyne, NYIL, n.33, p. 269.
312. Lillich, NYIL, n.72, p. 65.
313. J. Stone, Aggression and World Order (London 1958) p. 97.
314. Q. Wright, ‘The Goa Incident’, 56 AJIL (1962) p. 617
315. R.P. Anand, New States and International Law (Delhi 1972) p. 54 et seq.
316. D. Ceausu, ‘Quelques considerations relatives a 1’interdiction de l’emploi de la force dans les relations internationales et le droit de legitime defense’, 15 Revue romaine d’etudes Internationales (1981) p. 125.
317. C.H.M. Waldock, The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law’, 81 Hague Recueil (1952) p. 501. Similarly, Bowett, 125, n.61, p. 24.
318. Jimenez de Arechaga, Hague Recueil, n.105, pp. 92–93.
319. Brownlie, Hague Recueil, in ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, n.54, p. 219.
320. Skubiszewski, Hague Recueil, n.58, p. 764.
321. C. Roling, Hague Recueil, n.39, p. 249.
322. Falk, Hague Recueil, n.133, p. 430 and note 39 on that page where he applies this theory to the right to resort to forceful reprisal.
323. E. Baxter in Lillich, Hague Recueil, n.54, p. 54
324. D.W. Bowett, #x2018;Reprisals Involving Recourse to Armed Force’, 66 AJIL (1972) p. 1 et seq, and locxit., n.116.
325. T.R. Krift, ‘Self-defense and Self-help: the Israeli Raid on Entebbe’, 4 Brook. JIL (1977) p. 60
326. M. Reisman, ‘A Humanitarian Intervention to Protect the Ibos’, in Lillich, Brook. JIL, n.54, p. 177.
327. Lillich, idem, Brook. JIL, n.54, p. 61
328. cf., idem, Brook. JIL, n.72, pp. 61, 63.
329. ICJ Rep. (1949) p. 35 (italics added).
330. Quoted by Brownlie, ICJ Rep., in ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, n.54, p. 222.
331. Meuffels, ICJ Rep., n.32, p. 139.
332. Brownlie, ICJ Rep., n.54, p. 222.
333. Reisman, ICJ Rep., n.154, p. 177.
334. Higgins, ICJ Rep., n.111, p. 220.
335. Cf., for example, Akehurst, ICJ Rep., n.80, p. 16
336. Fonteyne, ICJ Rep., n.33, p. 255.
337. Hyde, quoted by Bowett, ICJ Rep., n.61, p. 104.
338. d’Angelo, ICJ Rep., n.80, p. 491 et seq.
339. Bowett, ICJ Rep., n.114, p. 114
340. H.G. Franzke, ‘Die militarische Abwehr von Angriffen. auf Staatsangehorige im Ausland — ins besondere ihre Zulassigkeit nach der Satzung der Vereinten Nationen’, 16 Oster. Z.o.R. (1966) p. 150 et seq; Krift, n.154, p. 60; Lillich, ICJ Rep., n.97, p. 236; Reisman, ICJ Rep., n.154, p. 171 et seq.
341. Reisman, idem, p. 175.
342. Lauterpacht, quoted by Reisman, idem, p. 171.
343. Idem, p. 172. Cf., Fonteyne, ICJ Rep., n.33, pp. 255, 269
344. Lillich, ICJ Rep., n.72, p. 65.
345. Reisman, ICJ Rep., n.154, p. 177.
346. Krift, ICJ Rep., n.154, p. 60.
347. Perez-Vera, ICJ Rep., n.60, pp. 414–15.
348. C., Bowett, ICJ Rep., n.61, p. 15.
349. C. Roling, ICJ Rep., n.129, p. 48 et seq.
350. Verwey, ICJ Rep., n.17, p. 121 et seq.
351. Grossman, ICJ Rep., n.24, pp. 194, 237
352. Sornarajah, ICJ Rep., n.56, pp. 75–76.
353. Franck and Rodley, ICJ Rep., n.64, pp. 299–300
354. Also C. Akehurst, ICJ Rep., n.80, p. 16.
355. Franck and Rodley, idem, p. 300.
356. Significantly, Art. 8 of the Genocide Convention, for instance, provides: ‘Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and supression of acts of genocide or any other acts enumeated in article III’; and C. Franck and Rodley, idem, p. 299.
357. Akehurst, ICJ Rep., n.80 p. 18.
358. Also C. Ceausu, ICJ Rep., n.142, p. 125
359. Fairley, ICJ Rep., n.38, p. 38
360. Franck and Rodley, ICJ Rep., n.64, p. 302.
361. Baxter in Lillich, ICJ Rep., n.54, p. 60.
362. Krift, ICJ Rep., n.154, p. 60.
363. Reisman, ICJ Rep., n. 154, p. 177.
364. Stone, ICJ Rep., n.139, p. 99.
365. Lillich quoted by Chaterjee, ICJ Rep., n.60, p. 762.
366. Cf., also, d’Angelo, ICJ Rep., n.80, p. 493;
367. Fonteyne, ICJ Rep., n.33, p. 258.
368. This was the legal situation prevailing under the 1928 Briand-Kellogg Pact of Paris, which was widely held to reflect customary international law. Cf., for example, Bowett, ICJ Rep., n.61, p. 22 et seq.;
369. C.G. Fenwick, ‘The Dominican Republic: Intervention or Collective Self-defense?’, 60 AJIL (1966) p. 64;
370. McDougal and Feliciano, AJIL, n.116, p. 233 et seq.;
371. Stone, AJIL, n.139, p. 92 et seq.;
372. Waldock, AJIL, n.146, p. 463 et seq. Many other authors do not share this view, however, arguing that Art. 51 should be strictly and literally interpreted so as not to undermine the effectiveness of the ban on force. Henkin eloquently observes: ‘What draftsman or reader would say that a clause which permits self-defense if an armed attack occurs, really permits self-defense whether an armed attack occurs or not?’;
373. L. Henkin, ‘Force, Intervention and Neutrality in Contemporary International Law’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1963) p. 196.
374. Also cf., Akehurst, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.80, p. 17;
375. Beyerlin, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.114, pp. 221-2;
376. Brownlie, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.113, p. 274;
377. P.C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations (New York 1956) p. 169;
378. E. Jimenez de Arechaga, ‘La Legitima defensa individual en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas’, in Homenaje a Barcia Trelles (Vallencia 1958) p. 332;
379. H. Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations: a Critical Analysis of its Fundamental Problems (New York 1950) p. 269;
380. J.L. Kunz, ‘Individual and Collective Self-defense in Art. 51 of the Charter of the UN’, 41 AJIL (1947) p. 872;
381. Roling, AJIL, n.109, p. 277;
382. Skubiszewski, AJIL, n.58, p. 767;
383. Wehberg, AJIL, n.105, p. 71.
384. This thesis is supported by, e.g., Beyerlin, AJIL, n.114, pp. 222-3;
385. Bowett, AJIL, n.61, p. 93;
386. Fenwick, AJIL, n.186, p. 64;
387. Krift, AJIL, n.154, pp. 52-3;
388. Thomas and Thomas, AJIL, n.24, p. 303.
389. Cf., Akehurst, AJIL, n.6, p. 244–5.
390. Idem, p. 244. Cf., also, Beyerlin, AJIL n.114, p. 220;
391. Brownlie, AJIL, n.113, p. 289;
392. Franck and Rodley, AJIL, n.64, p. 275.
393. Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case, PCIJ (1939) Series A/B No. 76.
394. Bowett, PCIJ, n.116.
395. Cf., V. Maya Krishnan, ‘African State Practice Relating to Certain Issues of International Law’, 14 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs (1965) p. 211.
396. C.J.R. Dugard, ‘The Organization of African Unity and Colonialism: an Inquiry into the Plea of Self-defence as Justification for the Use of Force in the Eradication of Colonialism’, 16 International Organization (1967) pp. 157, 165.
397. Cf., Grossman, International Organization, n.24, pp. 225–26.
398. See Krift, International Organization, n.154, p. 55.
399. Cf., for example, van Bogaert, International Organization, n.57, p. 73;
400. Brierly, International Organization, n.30, p. 403;
401. C.A. Colliard, Institutions internationales (Paris 1967) pp. 284-5;
402. Ganji, Institutions internationales, n.57, p. 24 et seq.;
403. Oppenheim/Lauterpacht, Institutions internationales, n.7, 1 p. 313;
404. Rougier, Institutions internationales, n.60, p. 473;
405. Sauer, Institutions internationales, n.58, pp. 123-4;
406. Scelle, Institutions internationales, n.57, p. 823.
407. Akehurst, Institutions internationales, n.80, pp. 10–11.
408. Cf., for example, Akehurst, Institutions internationales, n.80, p. 7;
409. Beyerlin, Institutions internationales, n.114, p. 227;
410. Franzke, Institutions internationales, n.166, pp. 161-2;
411. Meuffels, Institutions internationales, n.32, pp. 149-50;
412. M.W. Zacher, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977 (New York 1979) p. 238.
413. Reisman, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.154, p. 185.
414. von Glahn, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.33, p. 168.
415. Weissberg, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.62, p. 267.
416. Cf., also, Meuffels, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.32, p. 140.
417. Frey-Wouters in Lillich, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.54, p. 58.
418. Cf., also, Falk, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.133, p. 333;
419. Franzke, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.166, p. 166 et seq;
420. Lillich, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.72, p. 62;
421. Meuffels, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.32, p. 140;
422. Reisman, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.154, p. 185;
423. Weissberg, International Conflicts and Collective Security 1946–1977, n.62, p. 261 et seq.
424. A. Chayers et al., International Legal Process (Boston 1967) p. 1166.
425. Idem p. 1169. Cf., also, D.S. Bogen, The Law of Humanitarian Intervention: United States Policy in Cuba (1898) and in the Dominican Republic (1965)’, 7 Harvard International Law Club Journal (1965) p. 296 et seq.;
426. Fenwick, Harvard International Law Club Journal, n.186, p. 64 et seq.;
427. Franck and Rodley, Harvard International Law Club Journal, n.64, p. 287;
428. Meuffels, Harvard International Law Club Journal, n.32, p. 141;
429. J. Slater, Intervention and Negotiation: The United States and the Dominican Revolution (New York 1970) p. 203;
430. A.V. Wynen Thomas and A.J. Thomas, The Dominican Republic Crisis 1965 (New York 1967) pp. 5 et seq., 40 et seq.
431. The Events in East Pakistan, 1971 (International Commission of Jurists, Geneva 1972) p. 96.
432. Cf., for example, Akehurst, The Events in East Pakistan, n.80, p. 13;
433. d’Angelo, The Events in East Pakistan, n.80, p. 506;
434. Franck and Rodley, The Events in East Pakistan, n.64;
435. Meuffels, The Events in East Pakistan, n.32, p. 142;
436. J. Salzberg, ‘UN Prevention of Human Rights Violations: the Bangladesh Case’, 27 International Organization (1973) p. 114 et seq.;
437. Sornarajah, International Organization, n.56, p. 68 et seq.
438. Fonteyne, International Organization, n.33, p. 264.
439. Frey-Wouters in Lillich, International Organization, n.54, p. 107.
440. Frey-Wouters in Lillich, International Organization, n.54, p. 107.
441. Cf., also, Franck and Rodley, International Organization, n.64. Friedmann agreed that the intervention was illegal, but held at the same time that it was ‘morally acceptable’;
442. in Lillich, idem, p. 114
443. Meuffels, International Organization, n.32, p. 144;.
444. Zacher, International Organization, n.203, p. 276.
445. Cf., Manin, International Organization, n.52, p. 159 et seq.
446. For these and other quotations from, e.g., Prime Ministers Seaga (Jamaica), Eugenia Charles (Dominica), Adams (Barbados), S.T. Aimee (St. Lucia) and similar quotations from President Reagan, see the International Herald Tribune, 26 October — 6 November 1983.
447. Cf., Fonteyne International Herald Tribune, n.33, p. 261.
448. Farer quoted by Franck and Rodley, Fonteyne International Herald Tribune, n.64, p. 279;
449. B.S. Chimni, ‘Towards a Third World Approach to Non-intervention: Through the Labyrinth of Western Doctrine’ 20 IJIL (1980) p. 256.
450. Humphrey in Lillich, IJIL, n.54, p. VII;
451. Skubiszewski, IJIL, n.58, p. 759.
452. Flinterman, IJIL, n.64, p. 18;
453. Franck and Rodley, ICJ Rep., n.64, p. 304. This aspect, which applies to any form of armed intervention, was considered particularly objectionable by the ICJ in the Corfu Channel case: ‘it would be reserved for the most powerful States, and might easily lead to perverting the administration of international justice itself; ICJ Rep. (1949) p. 35. In a paper which will be published shortly, Bowett dismisses this argument, saying that it ‘has the same cogency as the argument that because it is not possible to protect human rights universally, it is not right to protect them anywhere’
454. Bowett, ICJ Rep., n.116.
455. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford 1979) p. 565.
456. Franck and Rodley, Principles of Public International Law, n.64, pp. 279 and 295 et seq.
457. See also, Bowett, Principles of Public International Law, n.116;
458. C.G. Fenwick, “Intervention: Individual and Collective”, 39 AJIL (1945) p. 650;
459. Schwartz, AJIL, n.41, p. 87.
460. Both quotations from Roling, AJIL, n.109, p. 283.
461. H.K. Tillema and J.R. van Wingen, ‘Law and Power in Military Intervention’, 26 ISQ (1982) p. 243 et seq., counted 71 armed interventions between 1946 and 1980 by the USA, UK and France.
462. See, also, I. Kende, ‘Oorlogen vanaf de tweede wereldoorlog’, 11 Transaktie (1982) p. 357, who counted 94 armed interventions between 1945 and 1982
463. Cf., the analysis of reactions to cases of intervention in UN debates by Fonteyne in Lillich, Transaktie, n.54, pp. 203–218.
464. See Menzel, Transaktie, n.33, p. 84;
465. K.R. Schmelzer, ‘Soviet and American Attitudes Toward Intervention in the Dominican Republic, Hungary and Czechoslovakia’, 11 VJIL (1970) p. 103;
466. L. Schultz, ‘Die Definition des Aggressionsbegriffs der Vereinten Nationen und die Sowietische Volkerrechtslehre’, 23 Osteuroparecht (1977) p. 14.
467. Cf., C. Chaumont, ‘A Critical Study of American Intervention in Vietnam’, in R.A. Falk, ed., The Vietnam War and International Law (Princeton 1969) p. 145.
468. Franck and Rodley, The Vietnam War and International Law, n.64, p. 285 et seq.
469. T.M. Franck, ‘Who Killed Article 2(4)?’, 64 AJIL (1970) p. 824.
470. N. Alford, ‘The Legality of American Military Involvement in Vietnam; a Broader Perspective’, 75 Yale LJ (1966) p. 50.
471. International Herald Tribune, 4 November 1984.
472. This expression was used by Somalia in relation to the occupation of the Ogaden desert by Ethiopia; Thiele, International Herald Tribune, n.56, p. 164.
473. Cf., J. Stone, ‘Hopes and Loopholes in the Definition of Aggression’, 71 AJIL (1977) p. 233 et seq.;
474. J.H. Leurdijk, Interventie in de Internationale Relaties (Amsterdam 1980) p. 72 et seq.;
475. J. Rohlik, ‘Some Remarks on Self-defense and Intervention; a Reaction to Reading ‘Law and Civil War in the Modern World’ 6 Ga. JICL (1976) p. 398 et seq.;
476. Thiele, JICL, n.56, p. 164.
477. Cf., for example, C.G. Fenwick, ‘Intervention and the Inter-American Rule of Law’, 53 AJIL (1959) p. 873 et seq.;
478. J.O. Murdock, ‘Collective Security Distinguished from Intervention’, 56 AJIL (1962) p. 503 et seq.;
479. A.J. Thomas, ‘The OAS and Subversive Intervention’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1961) p. 19 et seq.
480. von Glahn, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.33, p. 167.
481. Rougier, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.60, p. 509 et seq.;
482. Perez-Vera, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.60, p. 405 et seq.
483. Lawrence quoted by Ganji, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.57, p. 43.
484. Friedmann in Lillich, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.54, p. 114.
485. Bogen, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.209, p. 303.
486. Quoted by Anand, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.140, pp. 55, 56.
487. Fonteyne, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.33, pp. 249–50.
488. d'Angelo Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.80, p. 497;
489. Brownlie, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, in ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, n.54, p. 225;
490. Flinterman, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.64, pp. 16–17
491. Lillich, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.97, p. 248;
492. Meuffels, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.32, pp. 145-6;
493. Moore, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.31, p. 264;
494. Reisman, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, n.154, p. 193;
495. B. De Schutter, De rot van de Verenigde Naties in humanitaire interventies (Brussels 1972) pp. 444–5. See also the conditions of legality suggested for adoption by the UN at the end of the present study.
496. Cf., Roling, De rot van de Verenigde Naties in humanitaire interventies, n.109, p. 289.
497. T.J. Farer, ‘Harnessing Rogue Elephants: a Short Discourse on Intervention in Civil Strife’, in Falk, De rot van de Verenigde Naties in humanitaire interventies, n.231, p. 152.
498. Frey-Wouters in Lillich, De rot van de Verenigde Naties in humanitaire interventies, n.54, p. 107.
499. Idem, pp. 107–8.
500. Falk, De rot van de Verenigde Naties in humanitaire interventies, n.133, p. 431 note 39.
501. Idem, pp. 430–1 (italics added).
502. M. Bos, A Methodology of International Law (Amsterdam 1984) pp. 3 et seq., 11 et seq. In this recently published book, Bos outlines a methodology which remarkably enlightens the legal functioning of the category of general legal principles to which the principle of necessity belongs.
503. Fawcett, in Lillich, A Methodology of International Law, n.54, p. 164.
504. Cf., Verwey, A Methodology of International Law, n.17, p. 135.
505. Idem, quotations are from pp. 91–3, 94–5, 107, 108 (italics added).
506. Franck and Rodley, A Methodology of International Law, n.64, p. 300.