Suchergebnisse

An editorial on the Turkish Institute of International Law by Professor Philip Marshall Brown, President of the American Peace Society, appeared in the October 1943 issue of this JOURNAL. I had the pleasure of publishing in the ULUS newspaper on the 23rd of February, 1944, a translation of this editorial, which contained the expression of many good wishes for our Institute no less than for Turkey itself and I was rewarded by seeing that it aroused great interest and profound gratification in learned and political circles in Turkey. Needless to say, this favorable comment on its inauguration and work, written by an authority in the most progressive country in the world, was recorded with deep gratitude and pride by our Institute.

I. In the field of international law every subject generally acts in person, through its own organs, without resorting to cooperation with other subjects. However, international practice shows that members of the community of nations sometimes act on behalf of other members, with the legal effect that the transactions performed by the acting subject in the name and for the account of the other have for the latter the same legal consequences as if it had acted in person. This happens, for example, when a state, duly authorized, concludes through its own organs a treaty for another state: the latter is thus bound by the treaty exactly in the same way as if it had concluded the treaty itself, through its own organs. This legal phenomenon implies a split between the immediately acting international person and the person to whom the legal effects of these acts are imputed.

THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE ANTI-INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, THE "U.N. - BASHERS," AND THE GROWING COALITION TO CONVINCE MANY OPINION LEADERS THAT THE NORMS RESTRAINING FORCE HAVE BURDENED THE DEFENSE OF NATIONAL INTEREST. THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE IS NOT THE MORAL PROPRIETY OR EVEN THE PRUDENCE OF UNITED STATES BEHAVIOR. IT IS SIMPLY WHETHER THE RELATIVE DECLINE OF AMERICAN INFLUENCE OVER GLOBAL EVENTS CAN BE CONNECTED MEANINGFULLY TO U.N. CHARTER RESTRAINTS ON THE USE OF FORCE. THE AUTHOR HERE ARGUES AGAINST ANTI-INTERNATIONALISM AND CONTENDS THAT UNDER THE CHANGED CONDITIONS OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM, THE UNITED STATES MUST CONCEDE AS ILLUSORY ITS BID FOR UNCHALLENGED SUPREMACY, AND, INSTEAD, SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION. THE ALTERNATIVE IS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE U.N. WHICH WOULD ONLY ISOLATE AMERICA FROM GLOBAL INTERACTION.

Morten Bergsmo and SONG Tianying (editors), "Military Self-Interest in Accountability for Core International Crimes", FICHL Publication Series No. 25 (2015)

This course investigates the relationships between international criminal law and other branches of international law. It begins by examining four issues of general international law: the principal sources of international law, jurisdiction and immunities, State responsibility, and use of force. It then explores internationalhumanitarian law, focusing on definitions of war crimes and difficulties in linking IHL and ICL. Next, it examines refugee law, paying particular attention to the exclusion of war criminals from refugee protection and to international crimes that may be related to the rights and treatment of refugees. The final chapter explores the relationship between ICL and human rights law, examining the position of human rights within the Rome Statute of the ICC, as well as the human rights aspects of genocide, crimes against humanity, various procedural rights relating to fair international trials and the contribution of human rights fact-finding mechanisms

This book proposes a novel theory of self-determination; the Rule of the Great Powers. This book argues that traditional legal norms on self-determination have failed to explain and account for recent results of secessionist self-determination struggles. While secessionist groups like the East Timorese, the Kosovar Albanians and the South Sudanese have been successful in their quests for independent statehood, other similarly situated groups have been relegated to an at times violent existence within their mother states. Thus, Chechens still live without significant autonomy within Russia.