Aspects juridiques de la crise américano-iranienne

From the first day the American Embassy was invaded and its diplomatic staff was seized as hostages by Iran, the United States of America has pursued every legal channel in order to resolve this crisis by peaceful means. Its efforts started with the immediate dispatch of Mr. Ramsey Clark on a mission to negotiate with the government of Iran and were continued in the United Nations through the Secretary General, the Security Council, the U.N. Commission of Inquiry and the World Court. Though one can say that all disputes may theoretically be capable of settlement according to rules of law, it should also be said, as a matter of fact, that international law often has only limited relevance to disputes arising among States. This is so because international legal rules operate within a system which has no general scheme of sanctions and no central organ for the enforcement of international legal rights. States have traditionally utilized coercitive measures short of war in attempting to prevail in disputes with other States. Does this authorize a State to intervene by the use of force for the protection of its nationals abroad ? Even though, from the standpoint of morality, the abortive U.S. rescue operation in Iran may have had sound justifications, any legal justifications that could be put up had to give way before the principle of territorial sovereignty

De Budapest à Kaboul via Prague : l’esprit de suite de l’internationalisme socialiste

It is a well-established principle of international law that the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State is forbidden. It is also recognized that every State has the sovereign and inalienable right to choose its economic System as well as its political social and cultural Systems in accordance with the will of its people, without outside interference, coercion or threat in any form whatsoever. But international law does not prohibit the use of force in the exercice of the right of self-defence if an armed attack occurs and some writers state that there is no rule of international law which forbids the government of one state from rendering assistance to the government of another state.This article is primarily concerned with legal issues related to soviet invasion of Afghanistan; its purpose is to examine official statements put forward in Moscow in order to justify the legality of this armed intervention. As will be seen, there is a perfect similarity between legal arguments used in 1956, 1968 and 1980; this is being done in order to give the domestic crisis an international colouring and to justify a demand for foreign intervention. It must be noted that Soviet troops are "not interfering" in the international affairs of Afghanistan: on the contrary, they are "fighting for" the principle of socialist self-determination of the people of Afghanistan... By definition a war conducted by the USSR is a just and defensive war..

Axiomatique constitutionnelle et pratique politique : un décalage troublant

The object of this paper is to consider the place which theory occupies within the framework of our parliamentary system. In particular, the purpose of this essay is to analyse the gap which exists between legal theories and facts. While a knowledge of the past is a prerequisite to interpreting the present and estimating the future, it will only be possible in this paper to give a brief review of basic historical data ; it is an essay in law, not in legal history. Students of constitutional law have long been only students of the cases in relation to federalism. Constitutional issues that trouble the conduct of our parliamentary system are not those with which constitutional lawyers are familiar. Issues surrounding the separation of powers are critical for the safeguard of civil liberties. It is time to consider what problems have been encountered and what plans for the future could be accepted or proposed for a better working of our parliamentary gouvernment