Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T13:49:57.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legality of Pro-Democratic Invasion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Oscar Schachter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , July 1984 , pp. 645 - 650
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984

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 See p. 642 supra.

2 Nor have I found support for that interpretation in any scholarly commentary. McDougal and Feliciano, who stress the dangers of totalitarian rule, squarely reject the idea of using force to expand democratic values in other countries. “Any violent expansion involves a destruction of values incompatible with the overriding conception of human dignity.” M. McDougal & F. Feliciano, Law and Minimum World Public Order 188 (1961). See also note 8 infra.

3 On Central America, see, e.g., President Reagan’s address of May 9, 1984, 20 Weekly Comp. Pres. DOC. 676 (May 11, 1984); Motley, Assistant Secretary of State, Is Peace Possible in Central America?, Dep’t St. Bull., No. 2084, March 1984, at 67-69. See also material quoted in dissenting opinion of Judge Schwebel in Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1984 ICJ Rep. 169, 191-99 (Order of May 10), reprinted infra at p. 750.

4 See Davis, Robinson, Legal Adviser, U.S. Dep’t of State, Contemporary Practice, infra at p. 661 Google Scholar; Kenneth, Dam, Deputy Secretary of State, Contemporary Practice, 78 AJIL 200 (1984)Google Scholar.

5 For general discussion of the problem, see Schachter, , The Right of States to Use Armed Force , 82 Mich. L. Rev. (forthcoming, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 1976 Digest of United States Practice in International Law 150-51.

7 Waldock, , The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law , 81 Recueil des Cours 451, 467 (1952 II)Google Scholar; Waldock, , General Course on Public International Law , 106 id. at 1, 240 (1962 II)Google Scholar.

8

The fundamental import of the conditions of power which, in the contemporary global arena, manifest themselves in a precarious equilibrium of capacity for inflicting fearful destruction, is that the proponents of one system cannot destroy by violence the proponents of the other without bringing their own world to enduring radioactive ruin.

M. McDougal & F. Feliciano, supra note 2, at 189.

9 Corfu Channel case, 1949 ICJ Rep. 4, 35 (Judgment of Apr. 9).