Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:20:09.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sources of International Law: New Tendencies in Soviet Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

R. A. Mullerson
R. A. Mullerson*
Affiliation:
Department of International Law, Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As this discourse is devoted to the sources of international law in Soviet doctrine and the diplomatic practice of the USSR, I think that it is necessary to begin by characterizing my understanding of the contemporary Soviet doctrine of international law.

In Western countries, the Soviet doctrine of international law is often regarded as monolithic, without internal contradictions and discussions. It is not so, though I would agree that there are some grains of truth in those allegations. On certain questions we have had too much unanimity in our social sciences at large, and in the doctrine of international law in particular. One could feel this unanimity particularly in the domain of the most sensitive political and legal problems.

Type
Agora: New Thinking by Soviet Scholars
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , July 1989 , pp. 494 - 512
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989

Access options

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

References

1 Verdross & Koeck, Natural Law: The Tradition of Universal Reason and Authority, in The Structure and Process of International Law 17, 42 (R. St. J. Macdonald & D. M. Johnston eds. 1983) [hereinafter Structure and Process].

2 Macdonald & Johnston, International Legal Theory: New Frontiers of International Law, in id. at 1, 5.

3 H. Kelsen, Communist Theory of Law 193 (1955).

4 Schweisfurth, The Role of Political Revolution in the Theory of International Law, in Structure and Process, supra note 1, at 913, 917.

5 Shakhnazarov, East-West Questions of De-ideologization of Interstate Relations, Kommunist, NO. 3, 1989, at 77 (in Russian).

6 Schweisfurth, supra note 4, at 936.

7 McDougal & Reisman, International Law in Policy-Oriented Perspective, in Structure and Process, supra note 1, at 103, 113.

8 Reisman, Article 2(4): The Use of Force in Contemporary International Law, 78 ASIL Proc. 74, 79 (1984).

9 Reisman, Coercion and Self-Determination: Construing Charter Article 2(4), 78 AJIL 642, 644 (1984).

10 Moore, The Lawfulness of Military Assistance to the Republic of Viet-Nam, 61 AJIL 1, 31 (1967); see also Moore, The Secret War in Central America and the Future of World Order, 80 AJIL 43 (1986).

11 Rowles, “Secret Wars,” Self-Defense and the Charter—A Reply to Professor Moore, 80 AJIL 568, 579–80 (1986).

12 Tunkin, Soviet Theory of Sources of International Law, in VöLkerrecht Und Rechtsphilosophie: Internationale Festschrift für Stephan Verosta zum 70. Geburtstag 70 (1980).

13 For more detail, see G. I. Tunkin, Law And Force In The International System (1985).

14 See, e.g., G. I. Tunkin, Theory of International Law (1974); G. M. Danilenko, Custom in Contemporary International Law (1988) (in Russian); I. I. LUKASHUK, SOURCES oF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1966) (in Russian).

15 Tunkin, supra note 12, at 73.

16 Schweisfurth, supra note 4, at 928.

17 Virally, Panorama du droit international contemporain, 183 Recueil des Cours 181 (1983 V).

18 Id. at 182.

19 R. Erickson, International Law and the Revolutionary State 35 (1972).

20 1 F. C. von Savigny, System des Leutigen Romisches Rechts §14, at 35 (1840).

21 Lauterpacht, Règles générales du droit de la paix, 62 Recueil des Cours 94, 158 (1937 IV).

22 G. M. Danilenko, supra note 14, at 102.

23 Change and Stability in International Law-Making 133 (A. Cassese & J. Weiler eds. 1988) (discussion of voluntarism vs. majority rule in international lawmaking) [hereinafter Cassese & Weiler].

24 Tunkin, Co-existence and International Law, 95 RECUEIL DES COURS 1, 18 (1958 III).

25 Tunkin, Remarks on the Juridical Nature of Customary Norms of International Law, 49 Cal. L. Rev. 419, 427 (1961).

26 Basdevant, Règies générates du droit de la paix, 58 Recueil des Cours 471, 515(1936 IV).

27 Fisheries case (UK v. Nor.), 1951 ICJ Rep. 116, 131 (Judgment of Dec. 18).

28 Jiménez de Aréchaga, in Cassese & Weiler, supra note 23, at 27 (discussion of classical “sources” of international law).

29 Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, 1962 ICJ Rep. 6 (Judgment of June 15).

30 Case Concerning the Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946 (U.S. v. Fr.), 18 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 417 (1978), 54 ILR 304 (1979).

31 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 (Judgment of June 27).

32 D’Amato, Trashing Customary International Law, 81 AJIL 101, 103 (1987).

33 Id. n.10.

34 Franck, Some Observations on the ICJ’s Procedural and Substantive Innovations, 81 AJIL 116, 119(1987).

35 Reisman, The Emperor Has No Clothes: Article 2(4) and the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law, in United Nations for a Better World 3, 10 (J. N. Saxena Gurdip Singh & A. K. Koul eds. 1986).

36 A. D’Amato, International Law: Prospect and Process 97–98 (1987).

37 Id. at 81 n.13.

38 SC Res. 487 (June 19, 1981).

39 Akehurst, Custom as a Source of International Law, 47 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 1, 41 (1974–75).

40 G. M. Danilenko, supra note 14, at 76.

41 Schachter, The Nature and Process of Legal Development in International Society, in Structure and Process, supra note 1, at 745, 792.

42 Schachter, In Defense of International Rules on the Use of Force, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 113, 131 (1986).

43 A. D’amato, supra note 36, at 126.

44 Id. at 129.

45 Id. at 145.

46 North Sea Continental Shelf (FRG/Den.), 1969 ICJ Rep. 3, 41–44 (Judgment of Feb. 20).

47 Arangio-Ruiz, Presentation, in Cassese & Weiler, supra note 23, at 102, 102.

48 Virally, La Distinction entre textes internationaux ayant portée juridique dans les relations mutuelles entre leurs auteurs et textes qui en sont dépourvus: Rapport définitif, 60 Institut de Droit International, Annuaire 328 (1983 I); Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice, 178 Recueil des Cours (1982 V); G. I. Tunkin, supra note 13.

49 Lukashuk & Dmitrieva, International Law in the International Normative System, 1985 Probleme des Völkerrechts 159; Lukashuk, International Political Norms Under Conditions of Détente, Soviet State and Law, No. 8, 1976, at 106 (in Russian); Ignatenko, The Helsinki Conference (1975) and International Law, Jurisprudence, NO. 3, 1976, at 93 (in Russian).

50 Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: Final Act, Aug. 1, 1975, 73 Dep’t St. Bull. 323 (1975), reprinted in 14 ILM 1292 (1975).

51 Conference on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe: Final Stockholm Document, Sept. 19, 1986, reprinted in 26 ILM 190, 195, para. 101 (1987).

52 Yankov, in Cassese & Weiler, supra note 23, at 74 (discussion on lex lata and lex ferenda).

53 Schachter, supra note 48, at 126.

54 Virally, supra note 48, at 336.

55 Id. at 338.

56 Schachter, supra note 48, at 127.

57 Id. at 128.

58 Id.