Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:33:19.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Par in Parem non Habet Imperium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Yoram Dinstein
Get access

Extract

Lawyers in general, and international lawyers in particular, seem to suffer from what may be termed “the Latin formula syndrome”. In almost every branch of international law, one is faced with well-known epigrams of sententiousness drawn from the cornucopian source of ancient Latin phraseology. These venerable maxims, a legacy of the immense influence that Roman and Ecclesiastical law wielded on the fathers of modern international law, are in many respects very useful. In a few choice words, they epitomize fundamental ideas that may otherwise require verbose explanations, and they serve as a beacon for those groping their way in the legal dark. Unfortunately, however, laconic adages in general tend to be over-simplified, and, what is worse, as a result of constant and mechanical repetition, they are apt to lose their contact with reality and become petrified. If the law of nations is to be not merely “the law of notions”, but also the law of motion and animation, the epitaphs reflecting its major precepts must be reexamined every so often, else the mortmain of once flourishing but now barren concepts will keep it in a strangle-hold.

One of the more important of the Latin maxims that abound in international law is the general principle par in parem non habet imperium. This principle is commonly regarded as the starting-point for any venture into the field of State immunities, and it has even been said that

“There is no principle of international law more fundamental or more universally accepted than this”.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 1966 , pp. 407 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1966

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 A phrase coined by Franck, , “The Courts, the State Department and National Policy: a Criterion for Judicial Abdication” (1960) 44 Minn. L.R. 1101–23 at 1103.Google Scholar

2 In fact, the maxim has some import in the domestic law of certain States as well. For its significance in England, consult Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (1959) vol. 2, p. 1291. The present paper, however, is confined to the bounds of international law.

3 King, , “Sitting in Judgment on the Acts of Another Government” (1948) 42 Am. J.I.L. 811–31 at 818.Google Scholar

4 The distinction between general principles and mere rules is lucidly drawn by Fitzmaurice, , “The General Principles of International Law, Considered from the Standpoint of the Rule of Law” (1957) 92 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (below: R.A.D.I.) 1–223 at 7.Google Scholar Fitzmaurice explicitly regards par in parem non habet imperium as a general principle rather than just a rule (ibid., 8).

5 See Louter, , Le Droit International Public Positif (1920) vol. 2, p. 9.Google Scholar Some writers claim that the origin of the maxim lies in Roman law (see Baker, “The Doctrine of Legal Equality of States” (1923–1924) 4 Br. Year Book I.L. 1–20 at 13; Briggs, , The Law of Nations, Cases, Documents and Notes (2nd ed., 1952) p. 442)Google Scholar; but, unless they have in mind the medieval Gloss referred to infra (n. 8), we have not been able to find support for this claim.

6 Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretales Gregorii IX, Lib. I, Tit. VI (De Electione), Cap. XX.

7 Ibid. I am greatly indebted to Dr. G. Procaccia, Senior Lecturer in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for indispensable aid in my apprehension of the precise meaning of the ancient Latin texts referred to in this paper.

8 Glossa, Corpus Juris Civilis (Novellae), Authenticorum, Collatio I, Tit. VI (Quomodo oporteat).

9 Alighieri, Dante, De Monarchia, Lib. I, § 10.Google Scholar

10 See Belli, , De Re Militari et Bello Tractatus (Classics of International Law, 1936) vol. 1 (text of 1563), Pars II, Tit. XVI, p. 44.Google Scholar

11 See Gentili, , De Jure Belli (Classics of International Law, 1933) vol. 1 (text of 1612), Lib. III, Cap. VIII, p. 526.Google Scholar

12 See Nys, , “The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots from the Point of View of Public International Law” (1905) 17 Jurid. R. 50–53 at 51Google Scholar; Zouche, , Juris et Judicii Fecialis swe Juris Inter Gentes Explicatio (Classics of International Law, 1911) vol. 1 (text of 1650), Pars II, Sec. II, § 6, p. 62.Google Scholar Cf. Hanbury, , “The Position of the Foreign Sovereign before English Courts” (1955) 8 Current Legal Problems 1–23 at 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laurent, , Droit Civil International (1880) vol. 3, p. 51 Google Scholar; Levy, , “Criminal Responsibility of Individuals and International Law” (1944–1945) 12 Chi. L.R. 313–32 at 320CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Phillimore, , Commentaries upon International Law (3rd ed., 1879) vol. 2, p. 137.Google Scholar

13 See nn. 10–12 supra.

14 See Brierly, , “Règles Générales du Droit de la Paix” (1936) 58 R.A.D.I. 5–237 at 161Google Scholar; Calvo, , Le Droit International, Théorique et Pratique (4th ed., 1888) vol. 3, p. 295 Google Scholar; Cavaglieri, , “Règles Générales du Droit de la Paix” (1929) 26 R.A.D.I. 315–583 at 468Google Scholar; Eagleton, , “The Responsibility of the State for the Protection of Foreign Officials” (1925) 19 Am. J.I.L. 293–314 at 295Google Scholar; Fiore, , Nouveau Droit International Public (2nd ed., 1885) vol. 1, p. 429 Google Scholar; Heyking, , L'Exterritorialité (1926) p. 122 Google Scholar; Heyking, “L'Exterritorialité et ses Applications en Extrême-Orient” (below: Heyking, , “Applications”) (1925) 7 R.A.D.I. 241–335 at 283Google Scholar; Lapradelle, , “La Saisie des Fonds Russes à Berlin” (1910) 6 Revue de Droit International Privé et de Droit Pénal International 75–83, 779–97 at 780Google Scholar; Louter, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 9; Lyons, , “The Avoidance of Hardships Resulting from the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity” (1956) 42 Transactions of the Grotius Society 61–81 at 61Google Scholar; Oppenheim, International Law, vol. 1 (8th ed., by Lauterpacht, 1955) p. 759; Piédelièvre, , Précis de Droit International Public (1894) vol. 1, p. 465 Google Scholar; Redslob, , Traité de Droit des Gens (1950) p. 194 Google Scholar; Sack, , “War Criminals and the Defense of Act of State in International Law” (1945) 5 Lawyers Guild Review 288–300 at 292Google Scholar; Starke, , An Introduction to International Law (5th ed., 1963) pp. 208–09Google Scholar; Strisower, , “L'Exterritorialité et ses Principales Applications” (1923) 1 R.A.D.I. 233–87 at 263Google Scholar; Weiss, , Traité Théorique et Pratique de Droit International Privé (2nd ed., 1913)Google Scholar (below: Weiss, , Traité) vol. 5, p. 82 Google Scholar; Williams, , “Le Droit International et les Obligations Financières Internationales qui Naissent d'un Contrat” (1923) 1 R.A.D.I. 293–359 at 324.Google Scholar

15 Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on Competence of Courts in regard to Foreign States (Reporter: Jessup) (below: Harvard Research) (1932) 26 Am. J.I.L., Sp. Supp., 451–738 at 527.Google Scholar

16 See Fitzmaurice, op. cit., 7–8; Oppenheim, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 792–93; Panhuys, , “In the Borderland between the Act of State Doctrine and Questions of Jurisdictional Immunities” (1964) 13 I. & Comp. L.Q. 1193–213 at 1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See and cf. Briggs, op. cit., 442; Cavaglieri, op. cit., 359–60; Delbez, , Manuel de Droit International Public (2nd ed., 1951) p. 123 Google Scholar; Fenwick, , International Law (2nd ed., 1934) p. 212 Google Scholar; Fitzmaurice, op. cit., 187; François, , “Règles Générales du Droit de la Paix” (1938) 66 R.A.D.I. 5–291 at 201Google Scholar; Hartman, , “De la Compétence des Tribunaux dans les Procès contre les Etats et Souverains Etrangers” (1890) 22 Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée (below: R.D.I.L.C.) 425–35 at 426Google Scholar; Harvard Research, op. cit., 527; Kelsen, “Collective and Individual Responsibility for Acts of State in International Law” (below: Kelsen, , “Acts of State”), Jewish Yearbook of International Law (1948) pp. 226–39 at p. 230Google Scholar; Kelsen, , Peace through Law (1944)Google Scholar (below: Kelsen, , Peace) pp. 37, 82Google Scholar; Kelsen, , Principles of International Law (1952)Google Scholar (below: Kelsen, , Principles) p. 235 Google Scholar; Kelsen, “The Principle of Sovereign Equality of States as a Basis for International Organization” (below: Kelsen, , “Equality”) (1944) 53 Yale L.J. 207–20 at 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelsen, “Théorie Générale du Droit International Public, Problèmes Choisis” (below: Kelsen, , “Théorie”) (1932) 42 R.A.D.I. 121–351 at 238Google Scholar; Kleffens, , “Sovereignty in International Law” (1953) 82 R.A.D.I. 5–131 at 93Google Scholar; Lalive, , “L'Immunité de Juridiction des Etats et des Organisations Internationales” (1953) 84 R.A.D.I. 205–395 at 213Google Scholar; Lapradelle, op. cit., 780, 783; Lauterpacht, , The Function of Law in the International Community (1933)Google Scholar (below: Lauterpacht, , Function) p. 429 Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, “The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States” (below: Lauterpacht, , “Immunities”) (1951) 28 Br. Year Book I.L. 220–72 at 221Google Scholar; Levontin, , The Myth of International Security (1957) p. 132 Google Scholar; Lyons, op. cit., 64; Oppenheim, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 264–66; Panhuys, op. cit., 1195; Ross, , A Textbook of International Law (1947) p. 189 Google Scholar; Scelle, , “Règles Générales du Droit de la Paix” (1933) 46 R.A.D.I. 331–697 at 545–46Google Scholar; Schafer, , Crimes against Peace (1952) p. 117 Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, , International Law (2nd ed., 1949) vol. 1, p. 61 Google Scholar; Séfériadès, , “Principes Généraux du Droit International de la Paix” (1930) 34 R.A.D.I. 181–489 at 370Google Scholar; Seidl-Hohenveldern, , “Sovereignty and Economic Co-existence” (1959) 86 Journal du Droit International (below: Clunet) 1051–73 at 1055Google Scholar; Singh, , “International Law Problems of Merchant Shipping” (1962) 107 R.A.D.I. 7–167 at 99Google Scholar; Spiropoulos, , Traité Théorique et Pratique de Droit International Public (1933) p. 135 Google Scholar; Starke, op. cit., 208–09; Strisower, op. cit., 263; Strupp, , Eléments du Droit International Public (2nd ed., 1930)Google Scholar (below: Strupp, , Eléments) vol. 1, p. 118 Google Scholar; Strupp, “L'Intervention en Matière Financière” (below: Strupp, , “L'Intervention”) (1925) 8 R.A.D.I. 5–123 at 71Google Scholar; Strupp, “Règles Générales du Droit de la Paix” (below: Strupp, , “Règles”) (1934) 47 R.A.D.I. 263–593 at 510Google Scholar; Ténékidès, , “L'Immunité de Juridiction des Etats Etrangers” (1931) 38 Revue Générale de Droit International Public (below: R.G.D.I.P.) 608–32 at 617Google Scholar; Visscher, “Les Gouvernements Etrangers en Justice, Reconnaissance Internationale et Immunités” (below: Visscher, , “Immunités”) (1922) 3 R.D.I.L.C. 3rd ser., 149–70, 300–35 at 149Google Scholar; Visscher, , Theory and Reality in Public International Law (1957) (below: Visscher, Theory) p. 239 Google Scholar; Weiss, “Compétence ou Incompétence des Tribunaux à l'égard des Etats Etrangers” (below: Weiss, , “Compétence”) (1923) 1 R.A.D.I. 525–51 at 543Google Scholar; Williams, op. cit., 324; Wortley, , “The Interaction of Public and Private International Law Today” (1954) 85 R.A.D.I. 245–341 at 261Google Scholar; Zourek, , “Some Comments on the Difficulties Encountered in the Judicial Settlement of Disputes Arising from Trade between Countries with Different Economic and Social Structures” (1959) 86 Clunet 639–85 at 641.Google Scholar

18 See Compania Naviera Vascongado v. S.S. Cristina [1938] A.C. 485, 502; Shababo v. Heilen, Civil Case (1952) 16 P.M. 20, 22–24; Execution Case (1955) 9 P.M. 502, 503.

19 See particularly Allen, , The Position of Foreign States before National Courts, Chiefly in Continental Europe (1933) p. 52 Google Scholar; François, op. cit., 201; Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit., 1055.

20 Lately, broad attacks on State immunities being much in fashion, only few rules have escaped the wrath of jurists. In many cases criticism is admittedly confined to the lex ferenda. Thus, for instance, Scelle, who calls the jurisdictional immunities of foreign States a “phénomène d'anarchie” and “négation du Droit”, does not deny their hold on positive international law (Scelle, op. cit., 545–46). And see also Levontin, op. cit., 132–33. But there has been a head-on assault on these immunities in the lex lata as well. See Lauterpacht, “Immunities”, op. cit., passim.

21 See Kelsen, , “Acts of State”, op. cit., 230–31Google Scholar; Kelsen, , “Collective and Individual Responsibility in International Law with Particular Regard to the Punishment of War Criminals” (1942–1943) 31 Cal. L.R. 530–71 at 539–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelsen, , General Theory of Law and State (1945) p. 355 Google Scholar; Kelsen, Peace, op. cit., 81–84; Kelsen, Principles, op. cit., 235–37. Cf. my book, The Defence of “Obedience to Superior Orders” in International Law (1965) p. 58.

22 See Kelsen, “Acts of State”, op. cit., 230; Kelsen, Principles, op. cit., 235. See also Kelsen, “Equality”, op. cit., 209; Kelsen, Peace, op. cit., 37. Cf. Eustathiades, , “Les Sujets du Droit International et la Responsabilité Internationale, Nouvelles Tendances” (1953) 84 R.A.D.I. 397–672 Google Scholar at 419, n. 1; Schafer, op. cit., 117; and my book, op. cit., 59.

23 Eichmann v. A.G. (1961) 16 P.D. 2033 at 2070–75 (mimeographed English translation, pp. 127–130). See also the Judgment of the Court of first instance, (1961) 45 P.M. 3 at 46–48 (mimeographed English translation, Sec. 28).

24 Jessup, , A Modern Law of Nations (1950) p. 30, n. 51.Google Scholar

25 “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence”, the Arbitrator Huber stated very aptly in the famous Islands of Palmas Case (1928) 2 Reports of International Arbitral Awards 829, 838.

26 Needless to say, perhaps, the expression “sovereign equality” appears in Article 2(1) of the Charter of the United Nations.

27 See and cf. Cavaré, “L'Immunité de Juridiction des Etats Etrangers” (1954) 58 R.G.D.I.P. 177–207 at 186; Delbez, op. cit., 123, Fitzmaurice, op. cit., 187; Harvard Research, op. cit., 527; Heyking, “Applications”, op. cit., 283; Heyking, L'Exterritorialité (1926) p. 122; Kelsen, “Equality”, op. cit., 209; Kelsen, Peace, op. cit., 37; Kelsen, Principles, op. cit., 235; King, op. cit., 818; Kleffens, op. cit., 93; Lachs, , “Le Problème de la Révision de la Charte des Nations Unies” (1957) 61 R.G.D.I.P. 51–70 at 57Google Scholar; Lalive, op. cit., 213; Lapradelle, op. cit., 780, 783; Oppenheim, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 264; Schafer, op. cit., 117; Schwarzenberger, , International Law (2nd ed., 1949) vol. 1, p. 61 Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, , Power Politics (2nd ed., 1951) p. 89 Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, “Sovereignty: Ideology and Reality” (below: Schwarzenberger, , “Sovereignty”) (1950) 4 Year Book of World Affairs 1–22 at 8Google Scholar; Strupp, Eléments, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 118; Strupp, “Règles”, op. cit., 510; Ténékidès, op. cit., 617; Zourek, op. cit., 641.

28 This is the clear and concise definition of “sovereignty” (or independence) set forth by Judge Anzilotti in the Advisory Opinion of 1931 on the question of the Customs Régime between Germany and Austria, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B No. 41, p. 57.

29 Cf., for instance, the remarks made by Padilla Nervo in the course of the deliberations of the International Law Commission in 1957 on the subject of State responsibility ([1957] 1 Yearbook of the Commission 155).

30 This very adequate metaphor is used in connection with State immunities by LordTucker in the House of Lords decision in U.S.A. and France v. Dollfus Mieg and Bank of England [1952] A.C. 582, 623.

31 See particularly Kelsen, “Acts of State”, op. cit., 230–31; Kelsen, Principles, op. cit., 235; Sack, op. cit., 290–91. See also Briggs, op. cit., 442; Cavaglieri, op. cit., 359–60; Delbez, op. cit., 123; Fenwick, op. cit., 212; Harvard Research, op. cit., 527; Kelsen, “Théorie”, op. cit., 238; Lauterpacht, Function, op. cit., 429; Levontin, op. cit., 132–33; Oppenheim, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 264–66; Ross, op. cit., 189; Scelle, op. cit., 546; Schafer, op. cit., 117; Séfériadès, op. cit., 370; Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit.,1055; Singh, op. cit., 99; Starke, op. cit., 208–09; Strupp, “L'Intervention”, op. cit., 71; Weiss, “Compétence”, op. cit., 543; Williams, op. cit., 324; Zourek, op. cit., 641.

32 In the Asylum Case of 1950, the International Court of Justice indirectly defined immunity in general as “a protection against the regular application of the laws and against the jurisdiction of legally constituted tribunals” ([1950] I.C.J. Reports, 266, 284). Insofar as State immunities in particular are concerned, the emphasis must be placed more on the last, than on the initial, part of the definition.

33 See Lapradelle, op. cit., 780, 783; Levontin, op. cit., 132–33. Cf. Ténékidès, op. cit., 620; Zourek, op. cit., 641.

34 Cf. Williams, op. cit., 324.

35 As for jurisdictionem, see Brierly, op. cit., 161; Cavaglieri, op. cit., 360, 468; Delbez, op. cit., 123; François, op. cit., 201; Scelle, op. cit., 546; Séfériadès, op. cit., 370; Spiropoulos, op. cit., 135; Visscher, “Immunités”, op. cit., 149; Visscher, Theory, op. cit., 239; Weiss, “Compétence”, op. cit., 543; Weiss, Traité, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 82. With respect to judicium, see Briggs, op. cit., 442; Fenwick, op. cit., 212; Harvard Research, op. cit., 527; Kelsen, “Equality”, op. cit., 209; Kelsen, “Théorie”, op. cit., 238; Sack, op. cit., 292; Strupp, Eléments, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 118; Strupp, “L'Intervention”, op. cit., 71; Strupp, “Règles”, op. cit., 510.

36 As regards jurisdictionem, see Panhuys, op. cit., 1195, 1203. Insofar as judicium is concerned, see Hartman, op. cit., 426, 433; Lachs, op. cit., 57.

37 See Allen, op. cit., 52; Fitzmaurice, op. cit., 8, 187; Kelsen, “Acts of State”, op. cit., 230; Kelsen, Peace, op. cit., 37; Kelsen, Principles, op. cit., 235; King, op. cit., 818; Kleffens, op. cit., 93; Lalive, op. cit., 213; Lauterpacht, Function, op. cit., 429; Lauterpacht, “Immunities”, op. cit., 221; Lyons, op. cit., 61, 64; Oppenheim, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 264, 759, 792; Redslob, op. cit., 194; Ross, op. cit., 189; Schafer, op. cit., 117; Schwarzenberger, , A Manual of International Law (4th ed., 1960)Google Scholar (below: Schwarzenberger, , Manual) vol. 2, p. 690 Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, , International Law (2nd ed., 1949) vol. 1, p. 61 Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, , Power Politics (2nd ed., 1951) p. 89 Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, “Sovereignty”, op. cit., 8; Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit., 1055; Singh, op. cit., 99; Starke, op. cit., 209; Strisower, op. cit., 263; Wortley, op. cit., 261. See also Compania Naviera Vascongado v. S.S. Cristina [1938] A.C. 485, 502.

38 Kleffens, op. cit., 93.

39 See Calvo, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 295; Fiore, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 429; Heyking, “Applications”, op. cit., 283; Heyking, , L'Exterritorialité (1926) p. 122 Google Scholar; Piédelièvre, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 465.

40 See Eagleton, op. cit., 295.

41 As pointed out by Justice Holmes in International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty (1926) 272 U.S. 50, 52.

42 See Sanborn, , “The Immunity of Merchant Vessels when Owned by Foreign Governments” (1926–1927) 1 St John's L.R. 5–29 at 5.Google Scholar

43 “A rule answers the question ‘what‘why’” (Fitzmaurice, op. cit., 7).

44 See Harvard Research, op. cit., 528; Lauterpacht, “Immunities”, op. cit., 220–21; Sucharitkul, , State Immunities and Trading Activities in International Law (1959) p. 4.Google Scholar

45 Cf. Briggs, op. cit., 442; Harvard Research, op. cit., 528; Sucharitkul, op. cit., 4.

46 10 & 11 Geo. 6, c. 44.

47 See Lauterpacht, “Immunities”, op. cit., 220–21, 226, 229; Oppenheim, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 272–73. Cf. Harvard Research, op. cit., 527–28.

48 See Baker, op. cit., 13. Cf. Panhuys, op. cit., 1195; Ross, op. cit., 189; Scelle, op. cit., 545–46; Séfériadès, op. cit., 370; Visscher, Theory, op. cit., 239; Weiss, “Compétence”, op. cit., 543; Weiss, Traité, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 82.

49 See Weiss, “Compétence”, op. cit., 543. Cf. Fiore, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 445; Harvard Research, op. cit., 527; Ross, op. cit., 189; Scelle, op. cit., 545–46; Weiss, Traité, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 82; Zourek, op. cit., 641.

50 See and cf. Lauterpacht, “Immunities”, op. cit., 229; Oppenheim, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 272; Williams, op. cit., 325.

51 Williams, op. cit., 324.

52 See Rosenne, “Introduction” to my book, op. cit., vii.

53 Compania Naviera Vascongado v. S.S. Cristina [1938] A.C. 485, 502. See also Lauterpacht, “Immunities”, op. cit., 229.

54 See and cf. Delbez, op. cit., 123; François, op. cit., 201; Harvard Research, op. cit., 527–28; Kelsen, “Acts of State”, op. cit., 230–31; Kelsen, “Equality”, op. cit., 209; Kelsen, Peace, op. cit., 37; Kelsen, Principles, op. cit., 235; Lauterpacht, Function, op. cit., 429; Levontin, op. cit., 132–33; Oppenheim, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 264–66; Scelle, op. cit., 545–46; Schwarzenberger, Manual, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 690; Spiropoulos, op. cit., 135; Starke, op. cit., 208–09; Zourek, op. cit., 641.

55 See n. 9 supra. Cf. also Delbez, op. cit., 123.

56 See Schwarzenberger, , Power Politics (2nd ed., 1951) pp. 89–90 Google Scholar (the paragraph is, however, omitted from the third edition published in 1964) ; Schwarzenberger, “Sovereignty”, op. cit., 8. See also Kelsen, Principles, op. cit., 238. For a different look at par in parem non habet imperium in this context, cf. Johnson, , “The Constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal” (1953) 30 Br. Year Book I.L. 152–77 at 160Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, Function, op. cit., 429.