Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T05:59:45.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From the Covenant to the Charter*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

R.A. Akindele
Get access

Extract

The simultaneous application of the principles of universality and regionalism to the organization of international peace and security has naturally created the political and constitutional problems of how to secure a workable and appropriate relationship between universal and regional organizations. It is a paradox of the twentieth century that while world peace like war has tended to become indivisible, international organization of security remains tied to the principle of division and imperfect coordination of responsibility between universal and regional instrumentalities.

This article deals with the constitutional solutions adopted by the founders of the League of Nations and the United Nations to the problem of universal-regional relationship in international organization. Placing international constitution-making squarely within the context of the dynamic forces of international politics, the study identifies those political considerations bearing on the formulation of the constitutional relations between universal and regional organizations in both the League Covenant and the United Nations Charter. In addition, it emphasizes the important fact that the constitutional problems of international organization are inextricably related to the substantive problems of international politics.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 1973 , pp. 91 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1973

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 Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, Contribution à l'Etude des Ententes Régionales (Paris, 1949)Google Scholar; Yalem, Ronald, Regionalism and World Order (Washington, 1965)Google Scholar; Liska, George, International Equilibrium (Cambridge, Mass., 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Akindele, Rafiu, Regional Organizations and World Order (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, 1970)Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, Georg, The League of Nations and World Order (London, 1936).Google Scholar

2 See generally, Winkler, H.R., The League of Nations Movement in Great Britain, 1914–1919 (Metuchen, N.J., 1967)Google Scholar; Marburg, Theodore, The Development of the League of Nations Idea (New York, 1932)Google Scholar; Woolf, L. S. (ed.), The Framework of a Lasting Peace (London, 1917).Google Scholar

3 League of Nations Official Journal (1935) 1142.Google Scholar Cited in Taracouzio, T. A., War and Peace in Soviet Diplomacy (New York, 1940) 195.Google Scholar

4 Miller, David, The Drafting of the Covenant (hereafter referred to as Miller) Vol. 2 (New York, 1928) 3–6, 131–141.Google Scholar

5 The SS. Lotus Case. See Hudson, M., World Court Reports Vol. 2 (1935) 20 at p. 45.Google Scholar

6 Fleming, Denna F., The United States and the League of Nations (New York, 1932) 118–171Google Scholar; Miller, Vol. 1, pp. 276 ff.

7 Cmd. 151 (London: H.M.S.O., 1919); (1919) 13 A.J.I.L. 128; Hudson, M., International Legislation (Washington, 1931) Vol. 1, p. 2.Google Scholar

8 Article 10 states: “The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which the obligation shall be fulfilled”.

9 On the Monroe Doctrine, consult Perkins, Dexter, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (Boston, 1955)Google Scholar; Clark, J. R., Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine (Washington G.P.O., 1930).Google Scholar

10 SirWilliams, John Fischer, Some Aspects of the Covenant of the League of Nations (London, 1934) 1–2.Google Scholar For a dissenting view, see Kelsen, Hans, “Legal Technique in International Law: A Textual Critique of the League Covenant” (1939) 10 Geneva Studies No. 6.Google Scholar

11 Fleming, op. cit. supra n. 6; Miller, Vol. 1.

12 On the fate of the Covenant in the U.S. Senate, see Lodge, Henry Cabot, The Senate and the League of Nations (New York, 1925)Google Scholar; Fleming, D. F., The United States and the League of Nations 1918–1920 (New York, 1934).Google Scholar

13 Miller, Vol. 1, p. 446, (Emphasis in the original).

14 Cmd. 3109 (London: H.M.S.O., 1929), 25.

15 Boutros-Ghali, op. cit., supra n. 1 at p. 41 et seq.

16 Foley, Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson's Case for the League of Nations (Port Washington, 1967) 77.Google Scholar

17 Miller, Vol. 1, p. 447.

18 Miller, Vol. 2, p. 369; Vol. 1, p. 443.

19 Thomas, and Thomas, , Non-intervention (Dallas, 1956) Ch. 2Google Scholar; Grabber, D. A., Crisis Diplomacy: A History of U.S. Intervention Policies and Practices (Washington, 1959).Google Scholar

20 Miller, Vol. 1, pp. 443–444; Vol. 2, p. 370.

21 Miller, Vol. 2, p. 371; Vol. 1, p. 444.

22 Ibid.

23 See infra, p. 97.

24 See generally, Hyde, C. C., “Legal Aspects of the Japanese Pronouncement in Relation to China” (1934) 28 A.J.I.L. 431–443Google Scholar; Blakeslee, George, “The Japanese Monroe Doctrine” (1932–1933) 11 Foreign Affairs 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Miller, Vol. 1, p. 445, 446; Vol. 2, p. 371.

26 Miller, Vol. 2, pp. 369–370; Vol. 1, p. 443.

27 Doc. 889, III/4/12; United Nations Conference on International Organization, Documents (U.N.C.I.O. Doc), Vol. 12, pp. 701–702.

28 Miller, Vol. 2, p. 370.

29 Ibid.; Also Cmd. 151 (London: H.M.S.O., 1919) 18.

30 Miller, Vol. 2, p. 373; Vol. 1, p. 446.

31 Miller, Vol. 1, p. 442; Vol. 2, p. 371. (Emphasis added).

32 Miller, Vol. 1, p. 459. (Emphasis added).

33 Cmd. 151, (London: H.M.S.O., 1919) 18. (Emphasis added).

34 Miller, Vol. 2, p. 383.

35 Wilson, Florence, The Origins of the League Covenant (London, 1928) 80.Google Scholar

36 McNair, Lord, The Law of Treaties (London, 1961) 411–423.Google Scholar

37 Hans Kelsen, loc. cit. supra n. 10 at p. 152.

38 Ibid., p. 153.

39 Ibid., pp. 154–155.

40 Dexter Perkins, op. cit. supra n. 9 at p. 297; Sir John F. Williams, op. cit., supra n. 10 at p. 63.

41 Lord McNair, op. cit. supra n. 36 at pp. 432–435. See also the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Text in (1968) 63 A.J.I.L. 875.

42 Miller, Vol. 1, p. 448.

43 For a “relational” analysis of these Articles, see Kunz, Josef, “L'article XI du pacte de la Société des Nations” (1932) 39 no. I Hague Recueil 683–787.Google Scholar

44 Miller, Vol. 1., p. 182.

45 Liang, , “Regional Arrangements and International Security” (1945) 31 Transactions of Grotius Society (T.G.S.), 221Google Scholar; Yepes, , “Les Accords Régionaux et le Droit International” (1947) 71 no. II. Hague Recueil 235–237Google Scholar; Boutros-Ghali, op. cit. supra n. 1; Yalem, op. cit. supra n. 1 at pp. 39–40; Liska, op. cit. supra n. 1.

46 Miller, Vol. 1, p. 199.

47 Miller went away with the impression that “the idea of a ruling by the Council seemed most acceptable”. Miller, Vol. 1, p. 199.

48 Lauterpacht, H., “The Covenant as the Higher Law” (1936) 17 British Yearbook of International Law 58–59.Google Scholar

49 See Kunz, loc. cit. supra n. 43; and Conwell-Evans, T. P., The League Council in Action (London, 1929) Ch. 2Google Scholar, for a cogent analysis of the competence and powers of the League Council in pacific settlement.

50 See Sir John Williams, op. cit. supra n. 10 at pp. 167–169; Schwarzenberger, op. cit. supra n. 1 at Ch. 6.

51 Liska, op. cit. supra n. 1 at p. 134.

52 Yepes, J.M. in (1947) 71 no. II Hague Recueil 235–344, at p. 257.Google Scholar

53 Arregui, J.R. de Orue y, “Le Régionalisme dans l'Organisation Internationale” (1935) 53 no. III Hague Recueil 1–93Google Scholar; Ronald Yalem, op. cit. supra n. 1; Rafiu Akindele, op. cit. supra n. 1 at Ch. 3.

54 Churchill, Winston, The Second World War, Vol. 4: The Hinge of Fate (Boston, 1950) 802–805Google Scholar; Hull, Cordell, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, Vol. 2 (New York, 1948) 1640Google Scholar; Goodwin, G.L., Britain and the United Nations (New York, 1957) 4–13Google Scholar; Weiler, L.D. and Simons, A. P., The United States and the United Nations (New York, 1967) 20.Google Scholar

55 Churchill, op. cit. supra n. 54 at p. 804.

56 R.I.I.A., United Nations Documents 1941–1945 (London, 1946) 13.Google Scholar

57 Cordell Hull, op. cit. supra n. 54 at pp. 1314–1315.

58 Cmd. 6560 (London: H.M.S.O. 1944).

59 Russell, Ruth, A History of the United Nations Charter (Washington, 1958) 472.Google Scholar

60 Vandenberg, Arthur Jr., (ed.), The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg (Boston, 1952) 191Google Scholar; Yuen-li Liang, loc. cit. supra n. 45 at p. 226; Camargo, A. L., “Regionalism and the International Community” in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Perspective on Peace 1910–1960 (New York, 1960) 107–119Google Scholar; Russell, op. cit. supra n. 59 at p. 688 et. seq., Saba, Hanna, “Les Accords Régionaux dans la Charte de l'O.N.U.” (1952) 80 no. 1 Hague Recueil 614Google Scholar; Boutros-Ghali, op. cit. supra n. 1; Yepes, loc. cit. supra n. 52.

61 For a summary see Doc. 296, IH/4/5, U.N.C.I.O. Doc. Vol. 12, p. 764 et. seq.; Boutros-Ghali op. cit. supra n. 1 at p. 122 et. seq.

62 Report of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (Ottawa, 1942) 41.

63 Hanna Saba, loc. cit. supra n. 60 at pp. 677–683.

64 Boutros-Ghali, op. cit. supra n. 1 at pp. 162–163; Dept. of State, Report to the President on the San Francisco Conference (Washington, 1945) 85, 104Google Scholar; Liang, loc. cit. supra n. 45 at p. 227.

65 Bowett, D.W., Self-Defence in International Law (Manchester, 1958) 215–223.Google Scholar

66 SirBeckett, Eric, The North Atlantic Treaty, the Brussels Treaty and the Charter of the United Nations (London, 1950)Google Scholar; Stone, Julius, Legal Controls of International Conflict (1959) 247et seq.Google Scholar; Starke, J. G., The ANZUS Treaty Alliance (Melbourne, 1965) 76et. seq.Google Scholar

67 Julius Stone, op. cit. supra n. 66 at pp. 248–9.

68 Kelsen, Hans, “Is the North Atlantic Treaty a Regional Arrangement?” (1951) 45 A.J.I.L.Google Scholar and The Law of the United Nations (New York, 1950) 918.

69 Bowett, op. cit. supra n. 65.

70 Doc. 2, G. 14 (F); U.N.C.I.O. Doc, Vol. 3, p. 488; Doc. 576, III/4/9; U.N.C.I.O. Doc, Vol. 12, p. 688.

71 Stone, op. cit. supra n. 66 at p. 262; Kelsen, op. cit. supra n. 67 at p. 328; Ross, Alf, Constitution of the United Nations (1950) 172.Google Scholar

72 Eagleton, Clyde, “The North Atlantic Defence Pact” (1949) 3 Colum. J. Int. Affairs 29.Google Scholar

73 Doc. 2, G/14 (P); Doc. 2, G/14 (V); Doc. 2, G/14 (W) (I); U.N.C.I.O. Doc. Vol. 3, pp. 575, 598–599, 601; Russell, op. cit. supra n. 59 at pp. 690–692; Dept. of State, Charter of the United Nations: Report to the President on the San Francisco Conference (Washington, 1945) 106.Google Scholar

74 Report on the Conference at San Francisco (Washington, 1945) 96.

75 Regional Arrangements for Security and the United Nations (New York, 1953) 23.

76 Kelsen, op. cit. supra n. 67 at pp. 813–814.

77 Bentwich, N. and Martin, A., A Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations (London, 1969) 114.Google Scholar

78 It was very likely for this reason that the Bonn Government promptly called for the repeal of the enemy state clauses. See The Times (London) Sept. 16, 1968, p. 4.

79 Cmd. 6666 (London, 1945), para. 41.

80 Stone, op. cit. supra n. 66 at p. 254; Bentwich and Martin, op. cit. supra n. 76 at pp. 114, 186.

81 See generally the Cheng-Green Memorandum, International Law Association, Report of the 46th Conference, (Edinburgh, 1954) Appendix 5, pp. 160–183Google Scholar; Tabata in I.L.A., Report of the 48th Conference (New York, 1958) 528–529.Google Scholar

82 Doc. 852, III/1/37 (1); U.N.C.I.O. Doc. Vol. 11, pp. 711–714.

83 Doc. 2, G/7 (k) (1); U.N.C.I.O. Doc, Vol. 12, p. 767; L'Institut Royal des Relations Internationales, La Belgique et les Nations Unies (New York, 1958), 62–63, 160–161.

84 Doc. 2, G/14 (1); U.N.C.I.O. Doc., Vol. 12, p. 766; Harper, and Sissons, , Australia and the United Nations (New York, 1959) 49et. seq.Google Scholar

85 Vandenberg, Jr. (ed.), op. cit. supra n. 60 at pp. 192, 197; Houston, J. A., Latin America in the United Nations (New York, 1956) 46–50Google Scholar; Russell, op. cit. supra n. 59 at pp. 693–703; Plaza, Galo, “Latin America's Contribution to the United Nations Organization” (1946) 419 International Conciliation 150–7.Google Scholar

86 SirWebster, Charles, “The Making of the Charter of the United Nations” in Webster, , The Art and Practice of Diplomacy (London, 1961) 90.Google Scholar It should be noted that Article 51 was a contribution not in the sense that the right of self-defence was conferred by the Charter, for it was not conferred but merely preserved and declared, but in the sense that it provides a formula for reconciling the competing claims of the principles of universalism and regionalism in the field of international security.

87 Whiteman, M., Digest of International Law, Vol. 5, p. 971, et. seq.Google Scholar

88 See Kelsen, op. cit. supra n. 68 at p. 791 et seq.; Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford, 1963) 275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, Quincy, International Law and the United Nations, (1960) 100Google Scholar; Judge Krylov in I.L.A., Report of the 48th Conference (New York, 1958) 512Google Scholar; Bentwich and Martin, op. cit. supra n. 77 at p. 107; Singh, Nagendra, Nuclear Weapons and International Law (New York, 1959) 114–121.Google Scholar

89 Yennings, R. Y., “The Caroline and McLeod Cases” (1939) 32 A.J.I.L. 82–99.Google Scholar

90 Bowett, op. cit. supra n. 65 at p. 187.

91 Bowett, ibid., pp. 124, 135; Green, L.C., “Armed Conflict, War and Self-Defence” (1956–1957) 6 Archiv des Völkerrechts 410Google Scholar; Borchard, Edwin, “The Multilateral Treaty for the Renunciation of War” (1929) 23 A.J.I.L. 116–120.Google Scholar

92 Green, L. C. in I.L.A., Report of the 48th Conference (New York, 1958) 581.Google Scholar Cited in Whiteman, op. cit. supra n. 87 at p. 982. See also Brierly, , The Law of Nations (1955) 315Google Scholar; McDougal, and Feliciano, , Law and Minimum World Public Order (New Haven, 1961) 238–241Google Scholar; Waldock, , “The Regulation of Use of Force by Individual States in International Law” (1952) 81 no. II Hague Recueil 489.Google Scholar

93 Higgins, Rosalyn, The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations (London, 1963).Google ScholarThomas, , Thomas, and Salas, , The International Law of Indirect Aggression and Subversion (Dallas, 1966)Google Scholar; McDougal and Feliciano, op. cit. supra n. 92 at pp. 240–241.

94 Fischer, G., “Quelques problems juridiques découlant de l'Affaire Tchécoslovaque” (1968) 14 Annuaire Français de Droit International (A.F.D.I.)Google Scholar; Goodman, R. M., “The Invasion of Czechoslovakia: 1968” (1969) 4 International Lawyer 42–79.Google Scholar

95 Kelsen, op. cit. supra n. 67 at p. 724; Sir Eric Beckett, op. cit. supra n. 66 at p. 7.

96 Kelsen, ibid., p. 724; Beckett, ibid., pp. 8, 10–11.

97 Goldman, Marvin G., “Action by the Organization of American States: When is Security Council Authorization Required under Article 53 of the United Nations Charter?” (1962–1963) 10 U.C.L.A.L.R. 837–869.Google Scholar

98 Amador, F. Garcia, The Inter-American System (New York, 1966) 191.Google Scholar

99 U.N. Doc. S/PV. 893 Sept. 8, 1960, para. 16. For a concurring view, see Akehurst, Michael, “Enforcement Action by Regional Agencies, with Special Reference to the Organization of American States” (1967) 42 B.Y.B.I.L. 195–97.Google Scholar

100 Morozov (U.S.S.R), in U.N. Doc. S/PV. 998, March 23, 1962, para. 38.

101 U.N. Doc. S/PV. 894, Sept. 9, 1960, para. 14.

102 Halderman, J. W., “Regional Enforcement Measures and the United Nations” (1963) 52 Geo. L. J. 89–119Google Scholar; also The United Nations and the Rule of Law (New York, 1965) 37 et. seq.; Claude, Inis Jr., “The OAS, the U.N., and the United States” (1964) 547 International ConciliationGoogle Scholar; Draper, G.I.A., “Regional Arrangements and Enforcement Action” (1964) 20 Revue Egyptienne de Droit International 18, 20–23Google Scholar; Macdonald, R. St. J. in (1964) 2 Can. Year Book I.L. 54Google Scholar; Akehurst, loc. cit. supra n. 99 at pp. 175–227; Eide, Asbjorn, “Peace-keeping and Enforcement by Regional Organizations” (1966) 3 Journal of Peace Research 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

103 Chayes, Abram in Proceedings, American Society of International Law (1963) 12.Google Scholar

104 Art. 52.

105 See the 1964 and 1966 Reports of the U.N. Special Committee on the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. U.N. Doc. A/5746, Nov. 16, 1964; U.N. Doc. A/6230, June 27, 1966; Bogdanov, , in I.L.A. Report of the 53rd Conference (Buenos Aires, 1968) 4.Google Scholar

106 Garcia Amador, Regional Action for Pacific Settlement Within the Framework of the Charter. U.N. Doc. A/AC/18/SC.9/L.7. 1950. Reproduced in G.A.O.R., 5th Sess., Supp. No. 14 (A/1388), pp. 31–34.

107 Art. 35. (116) Art. 34.

108 Kelsen, op. cit. supra n. 68 at p. 387, et. seq.

109 Cmd. 6666 (1945), para. 86.

110 Dept. of State, Report to the President, op. cit. supra n. 73 at 105.

111 Arechaga, Jimenez de, “Le traitement des différends internationaux par le Conseil de Sécurité” (1954) 85 no. 1 Hague Recueil 94Google Scholar; Eagleton, Clyde, “The Jurisdiction of the Security Council Over Disputes” (1946) 40 A.J.I.L. 513–533Google Scholar; Goodrich, “Pacific Settlement of Disputes” (1955) 39 A.P.S.R., 956–970Google Scholar; Dept. of State, Report to the President, op. cit. supra n. 73 at p. 84–86.

112 Koo, Wellington, Voting Procedures in International Political Organizations (New York, 1947) 179Google Scholar; Arechaga, E.J. de, Voting and the Handling of Disputes in the Security Council (New York, 1950) 41.Google Scholar

113 Doc. 576, III/4/9; U.N.G.I.O. Doc, Vol. 12, p. 685.

114 See the explanation of the Chairman of Committee III/4, Colombia's Camargo, ibid., pp. 686–687.

115 Art. 34; Kerley, Ernest, “The Powers of Investigation of the United Nations Security Council” (1961) 55 A.J.I.L. 892–918.Google Scholar

116 Art. 35, 99.

117 Bentwich and Martin, op. cit. supra n. 77 at p. 76.

118 U.N. Doc. S/PV. 675, June 20, 1954, para. 63, 65, 156, 157; U.N. Doc. S/PV. 676, para. 19, 27. See also Inis Claude, Jr., loc. cit. supra n. 102; Macdonald, loc. cit. supra n. 102.

119 U.N. Doc. S/PV 874, para. 134.

120 ibid.

121 U.N. Doc. S/PV. 1196, para. 88; U.N. Doc. S/PV. 1204, para. 91–92; S/PV. 1217, para. 26–32. See Dupuy, R. J., “Les Etats-Unis, l'O.E.A. et l'O.N.U. à Saint-Dominique” (1965) 11 Annuaire Français de Droit International, 71–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

122 United Nations, Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Supplement No. 2, Vol. 2, Articles 9–54 of the Charter, (New York, 1964) 475Google Scholar; Boutros-Ghali, , “La Crise de la Ligue Arabe” (1968) 14 Annuaire Français de Droit International 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123 Fawcett, J. E., “Intervention in International Law: A Study of Some Recent Cases” (1961) 103 no. 2 Hague Recueil 382.Google Scholar

124 Lodge, op. cit. supra n. 12 at 186; Fleming, op. cit. supra n. 12 at 424.

125 Spenser, John H., “The Monroe Doctrine and the League Covenant” (1936) 30 A.J.I.L. 410.Google Scholar

126 U.S. Dept. of State, Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine (1930), xxiv.Google Scholar

127 Miller, Vol. 1, p. 445.

128 Doc. 710, 11/433, in Foreign Relations of the United States (1920) Vol. 1, p. 224.

129 (1928) 8 League of Nations, Monthly Summary, no. 8, p. 224.

130 League of Nations, Official Journal (1928) 1608.Google Scholar

131 Tom Connally linked the retention of the veto power with the acceptance of the U.N. Charter. According to the Report of the 19th Meeting of Committee III/l, “He asked if delegates could face the public opinion at home if they reported that they had killed the veto but had also killed the Charter”. See Doc. 956, III/1/47, U.N.C.I.O. Doc., Vol. 11, p. 493.

132 Taft, Henry W., “The Monroe Doctrine”, League of Nations, Vol. 2 (Boston, 1919) 154Google Scholar; [Elihu Root?], C., “The Future of Monroe Doctrine” (1923/1924) 2 Foreign Affairs 387.Google Scholar

133 Walters, F. P., The History of the League of Nations (London, 1967) 350Google Scholar; Fleming, op. cit. supra n. 12 at p. 424; Sir John F. Williams, op. cit. supra n. 10 at p. 63.

134 Kelchner, W. H., Latin American Relations with the League of Nations, Vol. 12, No. 6 (Boston, World Peace Foundation Pamphlets, 1929).Google Scholar

135 Highes, Charles E., Our Relations to the Nations of the Western Hemisphere (Princeton, 1928), 2–3.Google Scholar

136 Schwarzenberger, op. cit. supra n. 1 at p. 143; Wood, Bryce, The United States and Latin American Wars 1932–1942 (New York, 1966) 169, et seq.Google Scholar; Foy, Margaret La, The Chaco Dispute and the League of Nations (Ann Arbor, 1946)Google Scholar; Rafiu Akindele, op. cit. supra n. 1 at Ch. 3.

137 Doc. 972, III/6; U.N.C.I.O. Doc., Vol. 11, p. 52 also Vandenberg, Jr. (ed.), op. cit. supra n. 60 at p. 198.

138 Doc. 972, III/6; U.N.C.I.O. Doc. Vol. II, p. 56.

139 Rafiu Akindele, op. cit., supra n. 1 and the works cited supra n. 92.

140 Schwarzenberger, op. cit., supra n. 1; Sir John Williams, op. cit., supra n. 10 at p. 38 et. seq., SirZimmern, Alfred, The League of Nations and the Rule of Law (London, 1936) 277–285Google Scholar; Brierly, J. L., “The Covenant and the Charter” (1946) B.Y.B.I.L. 87Google Scholar; Tunkin, G. I., “The Legal Nature of the U.N.” (1966) 119, no. III Hague Recueil 1–66.Google Scholar

141 See generally, McDougal, , “Some Basic Theoretical Concepts about International Law: A Policy-Oriented Framework of Inquiry” (1960) 4 Journal of Conflict Reso lution 337–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also “International Law, Power and Policy” (1953) 82 no. I. Hague Recueil 137 et seq. For the view that the majority of British international lawyers regard international law as a S6t of neutral rules, see Higgins, Rosalyn, “Policy Consi derations and the International Judicial Process” (1968) 17 I. & Comp. L. Q. 58–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

142 Proceedings, American Society of International Law (1963) 14.