¹ Meron, Theodor, “Common Rights of Mankind in Gentili, Grotius and Suárez,” American Journal of International Law 85 (1991), pp. 110–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² See Bettati, Mario, “The Right to Interfere,” The Washington Post, April 14, 1991Google Scholar; Weiss, Thomas G. and Campbell, Kurt M., “Military Humanitarianism,” Survival 33 (1991), pp. 451–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Urquhart, Brian, “Sovereignty vs. Suffering,” The New York Times, April 17, 1991.Google Scholar

³ For a discussion of possible reforms, see Erskine Childers and Brian Urquhart, “Strengthening International Response to Humanitarian Emergencies,” unpublished document dated October 1991, from work sponsored by the Dag Hammarskjöld and Ford foundations; and the main UN background document, “Strengthening of the Coordination of Humanitarian Emergency Assistance of the United Nations,” document dated October 10, 1991, A/46/568. For an articulation of Third World views and concerns, see Olga Pellicer, “Uniting or Dividing the United Nations,” Occasional Paper #10 (Providence, RI: Watson Institute, forthcoming 1992).

⁴ United Nations Doc. A/46/1, September 6, 1991, pp. 10–11. This theme was also prominent in an earlier speech, “Secretary-General's Address at University of Bordeaux,” UNDPI Press Release SG/SM/4560 of April 24, 1991.Google Scholar

⁵ See for instance, Lillich, Richard B., ed., Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1973)Google Scholar; Lillich, Richard B., “Forcible Self-Help by States to Protect Human Rights,” Iowa Law Review 53 (1967), p. 325Google Scholar; Fonteyne, J.P.L., “The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention,” California Western International Law Journal 4 (1974), p. 203Google Scholar; Chilstrom, , “Humanitarian Intervention Under Contemporary International Law,” Yale Studies in World Public Order 1 (1974), p. 93Google Scholar.

⁶ Schachter, Oscar, “United Nations Law in the Gulf Conflict,” American Journal of International Law 85 (1991), p. 469CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ This was one of the themes in Weiss, Thomas G. and Minear, Larry, “Do International Ethics Matter? Humanitarian Politics in the Sudan,” Ethics & International Affairs 5 (1991), pp. 197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ For conflicting views on whether the Pact outlawed strictly declared “war” or uses of force short of a formal state of war, see Bowett, D.W., Self-Defence in International Law (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1958), pp. 132–38Google Scholar; and Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War “as an instrument of national policy” is sometimes referred to as the “Pact of Paris.” On aggression under the 1945 UN Charter, see further, Goodrich, Leland M. and Hambro, Edvard, Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents, 2nd ed. (Boston: World Peace Foundation, 1949), pp. 262–66.Google Scholar

⁹ See Rosenau, James, Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar, and Franck, Thomas M., “Who Killed Article 2(4)?” American Journal of International Law 64 (1970), p. 809CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ For a general discussion, see Weiss, Thomas G. and Kessler, Meryl A., Third World Security in the Post-Cold War Era (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1991)Google Scholar. For specific case studies, see Weiss, Thomas G. and Blight, James G., eds., The Suffering Grass: Superpowers and Regional Conflict in Southern Africa and the Caribbean (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1992).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Franck, Thomas M. and Rodley, Nigel S., “After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force,” American Journal of International Law 67 (1973), p. 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 338–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brownlie, Ian, “Thoughts on Kind-Hearted Gunmen,” in , Lillich, Humanitarian Intervention, pp. 139–48Google Scholar; Farer, Tom J., “Humanitarian Intervention: The View From Charlottesville,” in ibid., pp. 149–64.Google Scholar

¹² See for instance, Lillich, “Forcible Self-Help,” pp. 325–51; Moore, John Norton, “The Control of Foreign Intervention in Internal Conflict,” Virginia Journal of International Law 9 (1969), pp. 261–64Google Scholar; McDougal, Myres and Reisman, Michael, “Response by Professors McDougal and Reisman,” International Lawyer 3 (1969), p. 444Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, H., International Law and Human Rights (London: Stevens, 1950), pp. 120–21Google Scholar; Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise, ed. Lauterpacht, H., 8th ed. (London: Longmans, 1955), pp. 667–72.Google Scholar

¹³ Beres, Louis René, “International Law, Personhood and the Prevention of Genocide,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 11 (1989), pp. 25–65Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See Minear, Larry et al. , Humanitarianism Under Siege (Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press, 1990).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Black, Cyril E., “Challenges to an Evolving Legal Order,” in , Black and Polk, Richard A., eds., The Future of the International Legal Order, Vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 23–36Google Scholar; Falk, Richard A., “The Interplay of Westphalia and Charter Conceptions of International Legal Order,” in ibid., passimGoogle Scholar; Falk, Richard A., Legal Order in a Violent World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Friedmann, Wolfgang, The Changing Structure of International Law (New York: Columbia University Macmillan, 1964Google Scholar); and Jessup, Philip C., A Modern Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1951).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Donnelly, Jack, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989)Google Scholar. and Forsythe, David, The Politics of International Law (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1990Google Scholar).

¹⁷ United Nations Charter, Article 2(4); “Declaration on the Inadmissability of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States,” General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX) 1965; “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States,” General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) 1970.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See further, Allott, Philip, Eunomia: New Order for a New World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), chap. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Hinsley, F.H., Sovereignty, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, chap. I. This historical discussion is from chap. II. See also, Allott, Eunomia, para. 16.15 et seq.

²⁰ See particularly, Anand, R.P., “Sovereign Equality of States in International Law,” Receuil des Cours, 1986-II, pp. 11–228Google Scholar; and Jenks, C.W., A New World of Law? (London: Longmans, 1969), p. 133Google Scholar.

²¹ McLuhan, Marshall, The Guttenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962)Google Scholar, and Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul Ltd., 1964).Google Scholar

²² John H. Herz, quoted in Anand, “Sovereign Equality,” pp. 31–32.Google Scholar

²³ Cassese, Antonio, International Law in a Divided World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 391Google Scholar. On the concept of “the common heritage of mankind” generally, see chap. 14.

²⁴ Allott, Eunomia, para. 16.65.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Chopra, Jarat, “The New Subjects of International Law,” Brown Foreign Affairs Journal (Spring 1991), pp. 27–30.Google Scholar

²⁶ See UN Charter, Article 6, “Judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, 1946,” American Journal of International Law 41 (1947), p. 172Google Scholar; Article IV, , “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948,” United Nations Treaty Series 78, p. 277Google Scholar.

²⁷ Bowett, D.W., The Law of International Institutions (London: Stevens & Sons, 1975), p. 354Google Scholar. Also, see chap. 12.

²⁸ Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations case, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 174; legal capacity of the UN, including privileges and immunities, are provided for in Articles 104 and 105 of the UN Charter; Article 6 of the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Between International Organizations or Between States and International Organizations refers to “the capacity of an international organization to conclude treaties”; Re The European Road Transport Agreement (Case 22/70), Court of Justice of the European Communities, Common Market Law Reports, 1971, p. 335; Maclaine Watson v Department of Trade and Industry, Court of AppealGoogle Scholar, All England Law Reports 3 (1988)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company v The Libyan Arab RepublicGoogle Scholar, in International Law Reports 53 (1977), p. 389Google Scholar; Texaco v Libya and BP v Libya, International Law Reports 53 (1974), p. 329Google Scholar. See also the formal system for dispute settlement between states and foreign companies under the 1966 International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States.

³⁰ The ECOSOC Committee on Nongovernmental Organizations was established by ECOSOC res. 3(II) of June 21, 1946. It examines and reports on the consultative relationship that the Council should accord to international NGOs and recommends to the Council what action should be taken on submissions that those organizations may make to it.Google Scholar

³¹ One set of figures from Namibia numbered UN officials at 8,000, private individuals at 6,000, and the international press at 2,000.Google Scholar

³² Crawford, J., “The Criteria for Statehood in International Law,” British Yearbook of International Law (1976–77), pp. 93–182Google Scholar.

³³ Treatment of Polish Nationals in Danzig case, PC/7, Series A/B, No. 44, p. 24; Reparations for Injuries case, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 180. Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codified this principle with regards to treaties.Google Scholar

³⁴ Allott, Eunomia, para. 11.28.Google Scholar

³⁵ W. Michael Reisman's concept of “popular sovereignty” is no less sovereignty traditionally conceived than state sovereignty. “Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law,” American Journal of International Law 84 (1990), pp. 866–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ See Wilson, Heather A., International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), chap. 7.Google Scholar

³⁷ On human rights as an international concern beyond the domestic jurisdiction of states, see Dixon, Martin and McCorquodale, Robert, Cases and Materials on International Law (London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1991), p. 165Google Scholar; Shaw, M.N., International Law, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Grotius Publications, 1991), p. 196.Google Scholar

³⁸ Mazrui, Ali A., Cultural Forces in World Politics (London: James Currey, 1990), p. 22Google Scholar. Mazrui also distinguishes between peace and justice on religious grounds: by adopting peace over justice, the UN Charter allied itself with the Christian God of love, whose Son was regarded as a Prince of Peace, while the God of Islam and Judaism has been a God of justice.

³⁹ Articles 1–3, 28–30, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; Articles 2–22, 26, 27, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; Articles 1–18 and Protocols 1 and 6, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950; Part I and Part IT, Article 1, European Social Charter 1961; Part VII, Helsinki Final Act (Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1975); American Convention on Human Rights 1969; Preamble and Articles 1, 2, 17–22, 24, 26–30, 56, African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples' Rights 1981.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Tessitore, John and Woolfson, Susan, eds., Issues Before the 45th General Assembly of the United Nations (Lexington: UNA-U.S.A./Lexington Books, 1991), pp. 119–20Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Although, on the artificiality of the origins of positivism, see Ago, Roberto, “Positive Law and International Law,” American Journal of International Law 51 (1957), p. 691CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴² For instance, John Finnis identifies the following: life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability (friendship), practical reasonableness, ‘religion’ (Natural Law and Natural Rights [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980], chap. IV). On the generic principles of a constitution, see Allott, Eunomia, para. 11.5.Google Scholar

⁴³ See further, David, Rend and Brierly, John B.C., Major Legal Systems in the World Today (London: Stevens and Sons, 1985).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Finnis, , Natural Law, p. 403Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Allott, , Eunomia, p. xvii.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ For a definition of a threshold below which humanitarian intervention might be triggered, see Meron, Theodor and Rosas, Allan, “A Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards” American Journal of International Law 85 (1991), pp. 375–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lillich, “Forcible Self-Help,” pp. 347–51; Moore, “Control of Foreign Intervention,” p. 264.

⁴⁷ Minear, Larry, “A Strengthened Humanitarian System for the Post-Cold War Era,” testimony before the Select Committee on Hunger of the U.S. House of Representatives at a hearing entitled “The Decade of Disasters: The United Nations* Response,” in Minear, Larry, Weiss, Thomas G., and Campbell, Kurt M., Humanitarianism and War: Learning the Lessons from Recent Armed Conflicts, Occasional Paper #8 (Providence, RI: Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, 1991), pp. 36–42.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See for instance, Claude, Inis, Swords Into Plowshares (New York: Random House, 1964), chap. 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See the reflections by Lewis, Stephen, Maksoud, Clovis, and Johansen, Robert C., “The United Nations After the Gulf War,” World Policy Journal 8 (Summer 1991), pp. 537–74Google Scholar; and Urquhart, Brian, “Learning from the Gulf War,” New York Review of Books 38, March 7, 1991, pp. 34–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Kelsen, Hans, The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems (London: Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1950), p. 138Google Scholar. See also discussion of issues that follows, as well as p. 149 et seq. on states and individuals as UN “organs.”

⁵¹ For a more detailed analysis of these issues, see Weiss, Thomas G. and Chopra, Jarat, United Nations Peacekeeping: An ACUNS Teaching Text (Hanover, NH: Academic Council on the United Nations System, 1992-I)Google Scholar, Part Two, Section E.

⁵² This does not imply that better assistance (i.e., which ultimately contributes to development rather than simply emergency aid) or improved institutions would not also be necessary. On these issues, see Anderson, Mary and Woodrow, Peter, Rising from the Ashes: Disaster Response Towards Development (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989Google Scholar); and Kent, Randolph C., Anatomy of Disaster Relief: The International Network in Action (London: Pinter, 1987)Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of this problem with reference to refugees, see Gordenker, Leon, Refugees in International Politics (London: Croom Helm, 1987).Google Scholar An effort has been made to develop some generic procedural guidelines by the United Nations Institute for Training Research, and, Model Rules for Disaster Relief Operations: Policy and Efficacy Studies No. 8 (New York: UNITAR, 1982Google Scholar).

⁵³ UN Doc. A/46/1, p. 10.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ For a work on social organization based on culture, see Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991Google Scholar); on society, see Allott, Eunomia; for a revealing analysis on the human desire for absolutes, see Steiner, George, Real Presences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989)Google Scholar, part III; and on articulating an ethical vision, see particularly Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989Google Scholar).

⁵⁵ See the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of December 12, 1977 (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. 1989).Google Scholar