10.04.2013 Views

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

philosophically the ultimate expression of the liberal tradition, it sees all citizens as<br />

parties before the law of a global super-state. More usually, and with adherents to be<br />

found within both the liberal and international society traditions, the analogy sees states<br />

as persons in an international system and before international law. Suganami cites the<br />

eminent international legal authority Hirsch Lauterpacht in noting a key issue over<br />

which the analogy breaks down: in domestic law, the use of force (except by the<br />

sovereign authority in imposing law) is prescribed but in international law the<br />

acquisition of property (territory) by force, or the conclusion of treaties under duress,<br />

had a long tradition all but enshrined as legitimate in the international system. It was<br />

this anomaly that had to be addressed:<br />

The development of international law towards a true system of law is to a<br />

considerable degree co-extensive with the restoration of the missing link of<br />

analogy of contracts and treaties, i.e. of the freedom of will as a requirement for<br />

the validity of treaties, and with the relegation of force to the category of<br />

sanctions. 8<br />

The Covenant of the League of Nations begins to address just this ‘missing link’ when it<br />

states, at Article 10, that: ‘The Members of the League undertake to respect and<br />

preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political<br />

independence of all Members of the League.’ 9 Thus, continues Lauterpacht, the<br />

Covenant ‘may be regarded as containing in gremio, the elements of this development.’<br />

As was outlined in Chapter 1, the Covenant of the League required the submission to<br />

arbitration or judicial settlement of disputes ‘likely to lead to a rupture’, and imposed a<br />

‘cooling off’ period during which recourse to war was prohibited. 10 Moreover, the<br />

Covenant established the principle of collective security: ‘Any war or threat of war,<br />

whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby<br />

declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action<br />

that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.’ 11<br />

The paradigm was further and most substantially developed by the concluding of the<br />

General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, of 1928. The<br />

Treaty is short and to the point, consisting of just three concisely worded Articles, the<br />

68

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!