Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and the Future of International Law

Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has confronted the international community with fateful questions: whether the minimum world public order constructed after World War II is to survive, whether nuclear powers are free to commit aggression, and whether any state that is not an ally of a nuclear power is fair game for attack

Nicaragua: A Surreply to a Rejoinder

If readers can ignore the tone adopted by Messrs. Reichler and Wippman in their rejoinder, they will see that both what the Rejoinder says and what it omits confirm my argument. Messrs. Reichler and Wippman claim that [w]ith certain important exceptions, Nicaragua and the United States agree on many of the rules governing self-defense under international law. \u27 This statement is correct in general, although I find the formulation of the law by Messrs. Reichler and Wippman to be oversimplified and unsophisticated, particularly with regard to state practice. As a result, our differences are more important than our areas of agreement

Nicaragua and the Law of Self-Defense Revisited

For nearly eight years, the Nicaraguan question has been the most heatedly disputed issue of American foreign policy since the end of the Vietnam War. It has focussed the attention of Congress, which continues to consider Administration proposals to provide assistance to the Contras, and the American and Western press. Nicaragua has brought aspects of Nicaraguan-American relations before the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.), and Carlos Tiimermann, Nicaragua\u27s Ambassador to the United States, recently summarized his country\u27s case in this Journal Consciously or unconsciously, participants in the discussion are also addressing the future of world public order and of American foreign policy