Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T07:09:53.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re “The Arab Oil Weapon”: A Skeptic's View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Stephen N. Smith
Stephen N. Smith*
Affiliation:
Stephen F. Austin State University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Correspondence
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 136 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1975

References

1 See 68 AJIL 410 (1974).

2 The authors employ numerous terms to describe the Arab action, and finally maintain at 412 that no existing legal concept is adequate in light of the “coercive process” under consideration.

3 See supra note 1, at 413.

4 See supra note 1, at 417–18.

5 See supra note 1, at 419.

6 See UN GA Res. 2625, Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 25 UN GAOR, Supp. 18, at 122–24, UN Doc. A/8028 (1970).

7 See supra, note 1, at 417.

8 See supra note 1, at 421.

9 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964); Sei Fujii v. The State of California, 217 P.R. 2d 481 (1950).

10 See supra note 1, at 418.

* Correspondence on this matter is now closed. R.R.B.