¹ International Regulations regarding the Use of International Watercourses for purposes other than Navigation, adopted by the Institute of International Law at Madrid, April 20, 1911, 24 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 365–67 (1911).

² Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers, in Report of the Fifty-Second Conference of the International Law Association Held at Helsinki, August 14–20, 1966, at 486, 488 (1967).

³ Convention relating to the development of hydraulic power affecting more than one state, Geneva, December 9, 1923, 36 L.N.T.S. 77. Article 12 provides :

“If a dispute… cannot be settled either directly between the Parties or by some other amicable method of procedure, the Parties… may submit it for an advisory opinion to the body established by the League of Nations as the advisory and technical organization of the Members of the League in matters of communication and transit, unless they have decided… to have recourse to some other advisory, arbitral or judicial procedure.”

⁴ Resolution on the Utilization of Non-maritime International Waters (except for Navigation), adopted by the Institute of International Law at its Session at Salzburg (September 4–13, 1961), 49 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, Tome II, 381–84 (1961). Article 6 provides:

“In case objection is made, the States will enter into negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement within a reasonable time.

For this purpose, it is desirable that the States in disagreement should have recourse to technical experts and, should occasion arise, to commissions and appropriate agencies in order to arrive at solutions assuring the greatest advantage to all concerned.”

⁵ Supra note 2. Article XXXI, paragraph 1, provides:

“If a question or dispute arises which relates to the present or future utilization of the waters of an international drainage basin, it is recommended that the basin States refer the question or dispute to a joint agency and that they request the agency to survey the international drainage basin and to formulate plans or recommendations for the fullest and most efficient use thereof in the interests of all such States.”

Article XXXII provides:

“If a question or a dispute is one which is considered by the States concerned to be incapable of resolution in the manner set forth in Article XXXI, it is recommended that they seek the good offices, or jointly request the mediation of a third State, of a qualified international organization or of a qualified person.” Article XXXIII, paragraph 1, provides:

“If the States concerned have not been able to resolve their dispute through negotiation or have been unable to agree on the measures described in Article XXXI and XXXII, it is recommended that they form a commission of inquiry or an ad hoc conciliation commission, which shall endeavour to find a solution, likely to be accepted by the States concerned, of any dispute as to their legal rights.”

⁶ Declaration of the Seventh Pan-American Conference on the Industrial and Agricultural Use of International Rivers adopted at Montevideo on December 24, 1933, in 28 Am. J. Int’l. Law, Supp., 59-60 (1934). Article 8 of the Declaration provides that states in disagreement about a project shall establish a Mixed Technical Commission of experts from both sides which “shall act within a period of six months, and if within this period no agreement has been reached, the members shall set forth their respective opinions, informing the governments thereof.”

Article 9 then provides that, if agreement is not reached through diplomatic channels, the parties shall have recourse “to such procedure of conciliation as may have been adopted by the parties beforehand or, in the absence thereof, to the procedure of any of the multilateral treaties or conventions in effect in America. The tribunal shall act within a period of three months, which may be extended, and shall take into account, in the award, the proceedings of the Mixed Technical Commission.”

⁷ O.A.S. Off. Rec, OEA/Ser.I/VI.2 (English), CIJ-79, Article 9 (II). This Article is so ambiguously worded that it may be argued that it does not require but only recommends the submission of a dispute to a “Joint Commission.” The history of the Article, however, indicates that it was intended to establish a compulsory procedure: see ibid., 7 and 14.

⁸ 10 Inter-American Bar Association, Proceedings, 82 (1957), Article III, paragraph 9.

⁹ Chapman, J.D. (ed.), The International River Basin (Proceedings of a Seminar on the Development and Administration of the International River Basin held under the auspices of the Regional Training Centre for United Nations Fellows, University of British Columbia) 24–25 (1963).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Smith, , The Economic Uses of International Rivers 152 (1931).Google Scholar See principles no. 6 and 7.

¹¹ Berber, , Rivers in International Law 271 (1959).Google Scholar See also ibid., 268.

¹² Brierly, J.L., The Outlook for International Law 43 (1944).Google Scholar

¹³ Convention between France and Germany on the Octroi of Navigation of the Rhine, signed at Paris, August 15, 1804, 8 Martens, Recueil des Traités 261 (1835).

¹⁴ Baxter, R.R., The Law of International Waterways 96–148 (1964).Google Scholar

¹⁵ United Nations Legislation Series, Legislation, Texts and Treaty Provisions concerning the Utilization of International Rivers for Other Purposes than Navigation, U.N. Doc. No. ST/LEG/SER.B/12.

¹⁶ This analysis can be verified for the most part by reference to the Index in Legal Problems Relating to the Utilization and Use of International Rivers, U.N. Doc. No. A/5409, Vol. III, Annex IV (April 15, 1963). A few treaties made since this book was published have been taken into account.

¹⁷ Supra note 15, at 737, 739–40, Article XXVIII. Also in 3 Martens, N.R. 45 (1818).

¹⁸ For a sample of the more important recent treaties so providing, see the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, Article 8, 419 U.N.T.S. 126; the 1959 Nile Waters Treaty, Article IV, 453 U.N.T.S. 51 ; the Treaty between the United States of America and Mexico relating to the utilization of the waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers, and of the Rio Grande, signed at Washington on February 3, 1944, Article 2, 59 Stat. 1219, T.S. 994, 3 U.N.T.S. 313, which continued the International Boundary Commission first established in 1889; and the Columbia River Treaty, Articles XIV, XV, and XVI, [1964] Can. T.S. No. 2, 15 U.S.T. 1555, 542 U.N.T.S. 244, which itself was based on the long studies carried out under the direction of the International Joint Commission established under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, 35 Stat. 2448, T.S. 548, III Redmond 2607, 102 British and Foreign State Papers 137 (1908–1909).

¹⁹ For a discussion of these bodies, see Cano, Guillermo J., Systems of Administrative Organization for the Integrated Development of River Basins, U.N. Doc. No. E/CN 12/503 (April 17, 1959).Google Scholar

²⁰ Supra note 18.

²¹ See Bloomfield, and FitzGerald, , Boundary Waters Problems of Canada and the United States 39–40 (1958).Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 164–65.

²³ For a full discussion of the controversy about the Columbia River, see Johnson, Ralph W., “The Columbia Basin,” in Garretson, , Hayton, and Olmstead, (ed.), The Law of International Drainage Basins 167, 196–241 (1967).Google Scholar

²⁴ The International Joint Commission is composed of two sections, one of three Canadians and one of three Americans.

²⁵ See the Abstract of Report to the Internationa] Joint Commission on Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin, Prepared by the International Columbia River Engineering Board, April 1959, in The Columbia River Treaty, Protocol and Related Documents 18 (issued by the Departments of External Affairs and Northern Affairs and Natural Resources, February 1964).

²⁶ For the Report of the International Joint Commission on Principles for Determining and Apportioning Benefits from Co-operative Use of Storage of Waters and Electrical Interconnection within the Columbia River System, December 29, 1959, see ibid., 39.

²⁷ R. R. Baxter, op. cit. supra note 14, at 147.

²⁸ For the text of this Agreement, see supra note 15, at 270–73.

²⁹ For extracts of the Goldsmid and MacMahon Awards, see supra note 16, at 476–81.

³⁰ Sewell, W.R. Derrick and White, Gilbert F., “The Lower Mekong,” Int’l Concil., No. 558, at 7 (May 1966).Google Scholar

³¹ For a discussion of the Mekong Committee and developments since it was established, see ibid., 28–51.

³² Ibid., 48–51.

³³ Ibid., 50–51.

³⁴ For a full discussion of the part played by the World Bank in the settlement of the Indus River dispute, see Baxter, R.R., “The Indus Basin,” in Garretson, , Hayton, and Olmstead, (ed.)Google Scholar, op. cit. supra note 23, at 443, esp. at 457–67. See also Georges Fischer, “La Banque Internationale pour la Reconstruction et le developpement et l’utilisation des eaux du bassin de l’Indus,” 6 Annuaire Francais de Droit International 669 (1960). Another example of the value of the good offices of a third-party is the part played by the President of the United States in the Tacna-Arica dispute between Chile and Peru: see 23 Am. J. Int’l L., Supp., 183 (1929).

³⁵ The Jordan River dispute is fully described by Doherty, Kathryn B., “Jordan Waters Conflict,” Int’l Concil., No. 553 (May 1965).Google Scholar For Mr. Johnston’s role, see ibid., 23–30. See also Saliba, Samir N., The Jordan River Dispute (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ For example, see 48 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, Tome I, at 199–202, 333–34. (1959) ; and supra note 4., at 92. 14.8.

³⁷ For a full discussion of Article 33 of the Charter, see infra 145–58.

³⁸ 11 Inter-American Bar Assoc., Proceedings, 79–82 (1959).

³⁹ Principles of Law and Recommendations on the Uses of International Rivers. Statement of Principles of Law and Recommendations with a Commentary and Supporting Authorities Submitted to the International Committee of the International Law Association by the Committee on the Uses of Waters of International Rivers of the American Branch 6–9 (Washington D.C., May 1958. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 58–12111.

⁴⁰ American Bar Association, Proceedings, 1959, at 128 (American Bar Center, Chicago).

⁴¹ OAS Off. Doc, OEA/Ser.I/VI.2(English), CIJ-67, at 28 (1963).

⁴² Supra note 7, at 4.

⁴³ Ibid., 14–16.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 15.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 21.

⁴⁶ Supra note 9.

⁴⁷ Griffin, , Legal Aspects of the Use of Systems of International Waters. Memorandum of the State Department, S. Doc. No. 118, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., 90–91 (1958).Google Scholar See also Griffin, , “The Use of Waters of International Drainage Basins under Customary International Law,” 53 Am. J. Int’l L. 50, 79–80 (1959).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Laylin, John G., “Principles of Law Governing Use of International Rivers,” 10 Inter-American Bar Assoc., Proceedings, 156, 172 (1957).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See generally Laylin, John and Bianchi, Rinaldo L., “The Role of Adjudication in International River Disputes: The Lake Lanoux Case,” 53 Am. J. Int’l L. 30 (1959).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Laylin, John G. and Clagett, Brice M., “The Allocation of Water on International Streams,” in Smith, Stephen C. and Castle, Emery N. (ed.), Economics and Public Policy in Water Resource Development 424, 435–39 (1964)Google Scholar

⁵¹ Arechaga, , “International Legal Rules Governing Use of Waters from International Watercourses,” 2 Inter-American L.R. 329, 332 (1960).Google Scholar

⁵² Krakau, Knud, Die Harmon Doktrin 103 (1966)Google Scholar (for an English translation, see the review of this book by Laylin, John G., 62 Am. J. Int’l L. 531, 533 (1968)).Google Scholar

⁵³ Supra note 36, at 199–202, 205–09, 333–34; and supra note 4, at 92, 148.

⁵⁴ Supra note 36, at 202. See also ibid., 172.

⁵⁵ Ibid., 170, 206–07.

⁵⁶ See infra 145–58.

⁵⁷ Smith, , The Economic Uses of International Rivers 151 (1931).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid. 57–58, 120. See also Smith, H.A., “The Waters of the Jordan: A Problem of International Water Control,” 25 Int’l Aff. 415, 419–20, 423–24 (1949).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Berber, op. cit. supra note 11, at 262–68.

⁶⁰ Report of the Forty-Eighth Conference of the International Law Association Held at New York, September 1–7, 1958, at 41–42 (1959).

⁶¹ Scott, Robert D., “ Kansas v. Colorado Revisited ,” 52 Am. J. Int’l L. 432, 453 and 454 (1958).Google Scholar The quoted statements of this article provoked a reply from Laylin and Bianchi: see supra note 49.

⁶² These three points were made by Laylin and Bianchi: see supra note 49, at 36, 37, 39–41.

⁶³ Most of these points are discussed in Smith, op. cit. supra note 64, at 57–58, 120; Smith, supra note 295; Berber, op. cit. supra note 57, at 259–68; Scott, supra note 61 ; the commentary on Article XXX of the 1966 Helsinki Rules adopted by the International Law Association, supra note 2, at 522–24; Friedrich, , “The Settlement of Disputes between States concerning Rights to the Waters of Interstate Streams,” 32 Iowa L. Rev. 244, 265–69 (1946).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ [1927–1928] Ann. Dig. Pub. Int’l L. Cases 128, 132–33.

⁶⁵ 320 U.S. 383, 392 (1943). See also New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 313 (1921).

⁶⁶ For example, see New Jersey v. New York et al, 347 U.S. 995 (1954).

⁶⁷ 373 U.S. 546 (1963).

⁶⁸ 325 U.S. 589, 616–17 (1945).

⁶⁹ [1960] I.G.J. Rep. 6, 37.

⁷⁰ Supra note 61, at 453.

⁷¹ Smith, op. cit. supra note 57, at 151.

⁷² Smith, , “The Waters of the Jordan: A Problem of International Water Control,” 25 Int’l Aff. 415, 423–24 (1949).Google Scholar

⁷³ For a discussion of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on this subject, see Lauterpacht, , The Function of Law in the International Community 439–45 (1933).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ 12 Peters 657, 685 (1832).

⁷⁵ Ibid., 736.

⁷⁶ Kansas ν. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 97–98 (1907).

⁷⁷ Nebraska ν. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 608, 610, 616 (1945).

⁷⁸ 24 I.L.R. 101, 139 (1959).

⁷⁹ Supra note 72, at 423.

⁸⁰ Merrills, J.G., “The Justiciability of International Disputes,” 47 Can. Bar Rev. 241, 252 (1969).Google Scholar

⁸¹ 206 U.S. 46, 98 (1907).

⁸² Smith, op. cit. supra note 57, at 120.

⁸³ Ibid., 57–58.

⁸⁴ See supra note 61, at 454.

⁸⁵ 325 U.S. 589, 663–64 (1945).

⁸⁶ Supra note 61, at 454.

⁸⁷ Friedrick, supra note 63, at 265–66.

⁸⁸ Brierly, The Law of Nations 367 (6th ed. Waldock, 1963).

⁸⁹ Case relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 23 (1929); and Case concerning the Diversion of Water from the Meuse, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 70 (1937).

⁹⁰ The Award of August 19, 1872, rendered by General Goldsmid and the Award of April 10, 1905, rendered by General MacMahon concerning the Helmand River Delta, summaries of which may be found in Legal Problems Relating to the Utilization and Use of International Rivers, U.N. Doc. No. A/5409, Vol. III, Annex IV, at 476–81 (April 15, 1963); the San Juan River Arbitration (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (1888), ibid., 482–84, also in 2 Moore, International Arbitrations 1945; the Kushk River Arbitration (Great Britain v. Russia) (1893), in Legal Problems Relating to the Utilization and Use of International Rivers, U.N. Doc. No. A/5409, Vol. III, Annex IV, at 485–87 (April 15, 1963); the Faber Case (Germany v. Venezuela) (1903), ibid., 488, also in 10 U.N.R.I.A.A. 438; the Zarumilla River Case (Ecuador v. Peru) (1945), Informe del Ministro de las Relaciones Exteriores a la Nacion 623 (Quito, Ecuador. 1946) ; Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain) (1957), 24 I.L.R. 101 (1959), 12 U.N.R.I.A.A. 281; Gut Dam Arbitration (Canada v. United States) (1968), referred to in the “Report of the Agent of the United States before the Lake Ontario Claims Tribunal,” 8 Int’l Legal Mat. 118 (1969).

⁹¹ Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 (1902) ; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907); Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S. 383 (1943); North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365 (1923); Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931); Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341 (1934) ; Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558 (1936); Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963); Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660 (1931); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931); New York v. Illinois, 274 U.S. 488 (1927); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 179 (1930) ; Wisconsin et al v. Illinois et al, 388 U.S. 426 (1967) ; Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922); Wyoming v. Colorado, 286 U.S. 494 (1932); Wyoming v. Colorado, 298 U.S. 573 (1936) ; Wyoming v. Colorado, 309 U.S. 572 (1940); Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1901); Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906); New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296 (1921); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 295 U.S. 40 (1935); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945); and Washington v. Oregon, 297 U.S. 517 (1936).

⁹² See Scott, Robert D., “The Canadian-American Boundary Waters Treaty: Why Article II?”, 36 Can. Bar Rev. 511, at 519–47 (1958).Google Scholar

⁹³ These cases are respectively Aargau v. Zurich (1878), referred to in Schindler, , “The Administration of Justice in the Swiss Federal Court in International Disputes,” 15 Am. J. Int’l L. 149, 169–72 (1921)Google Scholar; The Leitha River Case, 7 Am. J. Int’l L. 653 (1913) ; Wurttemberg and Prussia v. Baden, supra note 308; Société Énergie Électrique du Littoral Méditerranéen v. Compagnia Impresse Elettriche Liguri, [1938–40] Ann. Dig. Pub. Int’l L. Cases 120 (No. 47, Court of Cassation (United Sections), Italy).

⁹⁴ Clagett, , “Survey of Agreements Providing for Third-Party Resolution of International Water Disputes,” 55 Am. J. Int’l L. 645, 646 (1961).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Ibid.

⁹⁶ Supra note 15.

⁹⁷ For example, see the Treaty between Chile and Peru for the settlement of the dispute regarding Tacna and Arica, June 3, 1929, Article 12 of which provided that, if the parties cannot reach agreement, “the dispute shall be settled by the President of the United States of America”: 94 L.N.T.S. 402. See also the Treaty between Belgium and Germany signed at Aix-La-Chapelle on November 7, 1929, Article 94 of which provided that, if the mixed adminstrative commission is equally divided on a question, that question is to be decided by a person from a third state designated by the Dutch government: 121 L.N.T.S. 328.

⁹⁸ 11 Martens, N.R.G., 3rd ser., 323 (1922).

⁹⁹ Ibid., 691.

¹⁰⁰ 12 Martens, N.R.G., 3rd ser., 43a (1923).

¹⁰¹ 28 L.N.T.S. 12.

¹⁰² 7 L.N.T.S. 36.

¹⁰³ The text of the Treaty can be found in 9 Annuaire Français de Droit International 887–89 (1963).

¹⁰⁴ A copy of the text of this Convention was obtained from the secretariat of the Lake Chad Commission.. It was not available to the author from other sources.

¹⁰⁵ See supra note 36, at 170, 206–07.

¹⁰⁶ P.G.I.J., Ser. Β, No. 5) at 27 (1923).

¹⁰⁷ See the Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27th, 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of May 26, 1959, [1959] I.C.J. Rep. 127, 142 and 187, and the North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3, 47.

¹⁰⁸ Supra note 2, Article XXVII, paragraph 1. It provides as follows:

“Consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, States are under an obligation to settle international disputes as to their legal rights or other interests by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice are not endangered.”

¹⁰⁹ Supra note 36, at 199–201.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., 204.

¹¹¹ Ibid., 201.

¹¹² Ibid., 333 and 335; also supra note 4, at 149.

¹¹³ Advisory Opinion concerning the Status of Eastern Garelia, P.C.I.J., Ser. Β, No. 5, at 27 (1923). And see, for example, the statements of the International Court of Justice in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome, [1954] I.C.J. Rep. 32, and in the Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27th, 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of May 26th, 1959, [1959] I.C.J. Rep. 127, 142. In his dissenting opinion in the latter case, Judge Lauterpacht said that the principle was too firmly established “to require confirmation by reference to precedents or otherwise”: ibid., 187.

¹¹⁴ Article is, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the League of Nations is as follows :

“The Members of the League agree that, if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to inquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision, or the report by the Council.”

¹¹⁵ See supra note 113.

¹¹⁶ See [I969] I.C.J. Rep. 3, 47.

¹¹⁷ See [1963] Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, at 87–89. For the Harvard Research Draft on the Law of Treaties, Article 36, see 89 Am. J. Int’l L., Supp., 1204 (1935).

¹¹⁸ [1963] Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, at 215.

¹¹⁹ See Article 62, Paragraph 3, of the Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties adopted by the International Law Commission, [1966] Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, at 262.

¹²⁰ Ibid., 263. See also 61. Am. J. Int’l L. 441 (1967).

¹²¹ See Analytical Compilation of Comments and Observations made in 1966 and 1967 with respect to the Final Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties (Working paper prepared by the Secretariat for the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties), U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 39/5 (Vol. II), at 366-82 (February 10, 1968).

¹²² For the text of Article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, see 63 Am. J. Int’l L. 875, 896 (1969). And for an account of the evolution of Article 66 at the Vienna Conferences, see J. S. Stanford, “The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” 20 U. of T.L.J. 18, 22–36 (1970).

¹²³ For the text of the Declaration, see 65 Am. J. Int’l L. 243 (1971).

¹²⁴ See Consideration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. The Report of the 1966 Special Committee, U.N. Doc. A/6330, at 114 (June 27, 1966). In the discussion of the Special Committee’s report in the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly, some members, including Canada, China, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan, Pakistan and Sweden, thought more emphasis should be placed on judicial settlement of disputes; many thought that the role of the International Court of Justice should be stressed: see [1966] Yearbook of the United Nations 907.

¹²⁵ 24 I.L.R. 101, 133 (1959).

¹²⁶ See Kathryn Β. Doherty, op. cit. supra note 35, at 35 and 65.

¹²⁷ Lecaros, , “International Rivers — The Lauca Case,” 3 Indian J. Int’l L. 133, 148–49 (1963).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Brierly, The Law of Nations 415 (6th ed. Waldock, 1963). See also Brownlie, , International Law and the Use of Force by States 361–62 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Some writers, however, doubt the validity of this narrow definition of “force”: see Kelsen, , Principles of International Law 84 and 86, fn. 77 (2nd ed. Tucker, , 1966)Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ See supra note 51.

¹³⁰ IIOppenheim, , International Law 154 (7th ed. Lauterpacht, , 1952).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Brownlie, op. cit. supra note ia8, at 268. See also ibid., 265–68, and Kelsen, op. cit. supra note 128, at 66.

¹³² It is not necessary for present purposes to consider whether Article 51 exhaustively defines the right of self-defence of members of the United Nations.

¹³³ On May 18, 1951, the Security Council did pass a resolution calling on Israel to stop work on the drainage of the Hula marshes, the first step to implement the All Israel Plan of water resources development. For the text of the resolution, see SCOR: 6th Yr., 1951, 546th Mtg., paragraph 2.