Spheres of Influence and International Law

  • Paul Keal

Abstract

We have seen, in the previous chapter, that when the United States and the Soviet Union have intervened in their respective spheres of influence, they have sought to justify their actions to the world at large, primarily by appealing to the needs of their perceived security requirements. They have also sought to justify their actions in terms of international law, but the status in international law, both of spheres of influence and of the actions influencing powers have taken, is uncertain and needs to be determined. The problem about this is that what one jurist will count as law another may not and what is law to one state is not necessarily considered law by another. A prior question, therefore, is: What is international law? Accordingly, the first part of this chapter discusses the nature of international law, both western conceptions and the Soviet conception. The second part deals with spheres of influence in the history of international law, and the third summarizes legal argument concerning the actions the influencing powers took in the same four examples considered in the last chapter.

Keywords

Europe Arena Defend Stake Clarification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    On positivism, see H.L.A. Hart, ‘Legal Positivism’, The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (ed.) P. Edwards (New York: Collier-Macmillan, 1967) vol. 4;Google Scholar
  2. and H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) p. 253.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    For this and subsequent references, see R. Dworkin, ‘The Model of Rules’, The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 35, no. 14 (1967–8) pp. 17–21.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    M.S. McDougal with Lasswell and Riesman, ‘Theories about international law: prologue to a configurative jurisprudence’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 8, no. 2 (Apr. 1968) p. 196.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    McDougal and Lasswell, ‘The identification and appraisal of diverse systems of public order’, American Journal of International Law, 53 (1959) p. 3. See also p. 5 in Studies in World Public Order (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 13.
    Rosalyn Higgins, ‘Policy and impartiality: the uneasy relationship in international law’, International Organisation, vol XXIII, no. 4 (Autumn 1969) p. 930. A review of Falk’s Legal Order in a Violent World.Google Scholar
  7. 14.
    Rosalyn Higgins, ‘Policy considerations and the international judicial process’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 17 (1968), pp. 58–9. Note: The terms ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’ should be taken in a limited rather than an absolute sense. Neutral laws and an objective judiciary are ideals.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 18.
    For this view, see I. Brownle, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) ch. 1. See also R.A. Falk, ‘The reality of international law’, review article, World Politics, vol. XIV, no. 2 (Jan. 1962).Google Scholar
  9. 20.
    B.A. Ramundo, Peaceful Coexistence (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins, 1967) p. 20.Google Scholar
  10. 21.
    Y. Korovin, ‘International Law Today’, International Affairs (Moscow), 7 (July 1961) p. 19.Google Scholar
  11. 23.
    D. Baratashvili, ‘International law principle of peaceful coexistence’, International Affairs (Moscow), 2 (Feb. 1972) p. 21.Google Scholar
  12. 24.
    See Rosalyn Higgins, Conflict of Interests, International Law in a Divided World (London: Bodley Head, 1965) pp. 101–9.Google Scholar
  13. 25.
    G. Tunkin, ‘Coexistence and International Law’, in Tunkin (ed.), Contemporary International Law (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969) pp. 13, 14 and 17.Google Scholar
  14. 26.
    Karl Marx, ‘Preface to the Critique of Political Economy’, K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1951) p. 329.Google Scholar
  15. 28.
    G. Tunkin, ‘The Soviet Union and international law’, International Affairs (Moscow), 11 (Nov. 1959) p. 40.Google Scholar
  16. 30.
    I. Lapenna, ‘International law viewed through Soviet eyes’, Yearbook of World Affairs (1961) p. 223.Google Scholar
  17. 31.
    V.I. Fyodorov, ‘The imperialist doctrine of intercepting revolution’, International Affairs (Moscow), 5 (May 1966) p. 66.Google Scholar
  18. 32.
    Kozhevnikov, op. cit., p. 12; see also T.A. Taracouzio, The Soviet Union and International Law (New York: Macmillan, 1935) pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  19. 34.
    E. McWhinney, ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ and Soviet-Western International Law (Leyden: Sythoff, 1964) pp. 36–37.Google Scholar
  20. 36.
    N. Jamogotch, Soviet-East European Dialogue: International Relations of a New Type? (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1968) pp. 94–5.Google Scholar
  21. See also B. Miroshnichenku, ‘Socialist internationalism and Soviet foreign policy’, International Affairs (Moscow), 5 (May 1966)Google Scholar
  22. I. Dudinsky, ‘A community of equal and sovereign nations’, International Affairs (Moscow), 11 (Nov. 1964)Google Scholar
  23. and S. Sanakoyev, ‘The basis of the relations between the socialist countries’, International Affairs (Moscow), 7 (July 1958). All cited by Jamogotch.Google Scholar
  24. 38.
    Cited by Ivo Lapenna, ‘The Soviet concept of “Socialist” internationalism’, The Yearbook of World Affairs (1975) p. 261.Google Scholar
  25. 39.
    E. Korovin, ‘Proletarian internationalism in world relations’, International Affairs (Moscow), 2 (Feb. 1958) pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
  26. 40.
    S. Kovalev, ‘Sovereignty and the international obligations of socialist countries’, Pravda, 26 Sept. 1968. CDSP, vol. XX, no. 39 (16 Oct. 1968) pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
  27. 44.
    On this, see A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1947), rev. edn.Google Scholar
  28. and Lord Denis Lloyd, The Idea of Law (Hardmondsworth: Penguin, 1973) chs. 4 and 5.Google Scholar
  29. 46.
    M.F. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969) p. 23.Google Scholar
  30. 47.
    L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. 1 (London: Longmans Green, 1947) 6th edn. (ed. by H. Lauterpacht) p. 514.Google Scholar
  31. 48.
    Pitt Cobbett, Cases on International Law (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1947) 6th edn., vol. 1, Peace, p. 119.Google Scholar
  32. 49.
    W.E. Hall, A Treatise on International Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924) 8th edn., p. 154.Google Scholar
  33. See also Hall’s A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894) p. 229.Google Scholar
  34. 53.
    Cited by Hannis Taylor, A Treatise on International Public Law (Chicago: Callaghan, 1901) p. 150.Google Scholar
  35. 55.
    Elihu Root, ‘The real Monroe Doctrine’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 8, no. 3 (July 1914) p. 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 57.
    A. Pearce Higgins, ‘The Monroe Doctrine’, British Year-book of International Law, 1924, p. 113.Google Scholar
  37. 61.
    See T.M. Franck and E. Weisband, Word Politics, Verbal Strategy Among the Superpowers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972) passim.Google Scholar
  38. 62.
    See for instance report by the International Commission of Jurists, The Hungarian Situation and the Rule of Law (The Hague, 1957) pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
  39. 63.
    J.W. Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power (London: Cape, 1967) p. 94. See also R.T. Bohan, ‘The Dominican Case: unilateral intervention’, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 60, no. 4 (Oct. 1966), and Quincy Wright, ‘Intervention 1956’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 51, no. 2 (Apr. 1957).Google Scholar
  40. 64.
    A.J. and A.V.W. Thomas, Working Paper, The Dominican Crisis 1965, the Ninth Hammarskjold Forum, J. Carey (ed.), (New York: Oceana Publications, 1967) p. 23.Google Scholar
  41. 69.
    Quincy Wright, ‘The Cuban quarantine’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 57, no. 3 (July 1963) pp. 549–53.Google Scholar
  42. 70.
    Leonard C. Meeker, ‘Defensive quarantine and the law’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 57, no. 3, (July 1963) p. 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 72.
    Letter from Norbert A. Schlei to Abram Chayes. See Appendix 1, Abram Chayes, The Cuban Missile Crisis (London: Oxford University Press, 1974) p. 133.Google Scholar
  44. 74.
    R.A. Falk, ‘The interplay of Westphalia and charter conceptions of international legal order’, in R.A. Falk and C.E. Black (eds.), The Future of the International Legal Order, vol. 1 (Princeton University Press, 1969) p. 34.Google Scholar
  45. 75.
    R.A. Falk, ‘Zone II as a world order construct’, in J.N. Rosenau, V. Davis and M.A. East (eds.), The Analysis of International Politics (New York: Free Press, 1972) pp. 188 and 192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paul Ernest Keal 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Keal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations