Some Diplomatic Problems of Codification of the Law of Treaties

The International Law Conmission is presently engaged in a project to codify the Law of Treaties. A project of this magnitude is, of course, replete with imany substantive legal problems. The author, while fully cognizant of the ramifications of the legal issues presented by the codification, takes as his central topic some of the less obvious but, perhaps ultiviately more critical problems, related to the codification project. After defining the scope of the project and tracing the remote and recent history of the codification of treaty law, the author discusses the structural form which the restatement of treaty law has taken, the impact which the political attitudes of participating states have had on the project and the conditions-both procedural and in terms of political climate—necessary for a successful diplomatic negotiation and adjustment of conflicting state interests

International Law and the Use of Force

If international law is conceived as a standard-setting regulatory pattern for the normal conduct of states towards one another, the question of international law and the use of force—of the relationship between law in force—belongs not to its static parts, but rather to a more dynamic and, truth to tell, less clearly regulated area

An Article that Changed the Course of History?

Yehuda Blum's article, ostensibly devoted to an examination of the lawfulness of a military order under the law of occupation, actually explored a preliminary question – whether Jordan had valid title to the West Bank (referred to as ‘Judea and Samaria’). Concluding that Jordan had no title, Blum concluded that the law of occupation did not apply. This reflection revisits Blum's thesis. It suggests that Blum's argument failed to elucidate the relevant legal questions and therefore his conclusion was hasty. It would be distressing to think that it was Blum's article that convinced Israeli decision-makers to deny the formal applicability of the law of occupation to the West Bank and Gaza.</jats:p

The influence of teachings of publicists on the development of international law

This article considers the influence of teachings of publicists on the development of international law. The category of ‘teachings of publicists’ is not a homogeneous one. The article argues that it can be divided into: entities that have been empowered by States to conclude teachings, such as the International Law Commission; expert groups, such as the Institut de Droit International; and ‘ordinary’ publicists. The teachings of ordinary publicists are also of different types and include digests, treatises, textbooks, monographs, journal articles, and blog posts. Only by breaking down the category into its various types can the influence of the teaching of publicists on the development of international law be properly gauged. Even then, it can prove rather difficult to pin down the notion of ‘influence’. Standard assessments of influence focus on the extent to which teachings are cited by courts and tribunals, in particular by the International Court of Justice. However, that approach privileges the role of courts and tribunals in the development of international law and overlooks the role of other actors. As such, the present article offers a different assessment of influence. It identifies the actors that comprise the community of international lawyers and analyses the various interactions that take place between these actors and the teachings of publicists. It is through this interaction, of which citation is but part, that the influence of the teachings of publicists can properly be determined