Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:00:31.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law. Edited by Michael Byers and Georg Nolte. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Pp. xvii, 531. Index. $95, £65.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Detlev F. Vagts
Detlev F. Vagts*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Books on International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 98 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 214 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For references to such hegemony/empire claims, see Detlev, F. Vagts, Hegemonic International Law, 95 AJIL 843, 843 nn. 1-3 (2001).Google Scholar Prominent among later references to empire are Boot, Max, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power (2002)Google Scholar, and Ferguson, Niall, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (2003).Google Scholar

2 For a concise treatment of economic hegemony, see Ferguson, Niall, Hegemony or Empire1? Foreign Aff., Sept./Oct. 2003, at 154.Google Scholar

3 For examples of U.S. pressure in the United Nations, see Jose, E. Alvarez, Hegemonic International Law Revisited, 97 AJIL 873 (2003).Google Scholar

4 Thomas, M. Franck, Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense, 95 AJIL 839 (2001).Google Scholar

5 According to Webster’s formula, anticipatory self-defense is justified if the “necessity of self-defence [was] instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation ...”; see Letter from Daniel Webster, U.S. Secretary of State, to Henry Fox, British Minister in Washington (Apr. 24, 1841), in 29 British and Foreign State Papers 1840–1841, at 1138 (1857).Google Scholar

6 See the views of the arbitrator, Rene-Jean Dupuy, in Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co. & California Asiatic Oil Co. v. Libyan Arab Republic, 17 ILM 1 (1978).