We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
To write of Philip Jessup means to survey the history of the teaching of international law in the United States throughout the last half century; to cover all important events concerning the birth of international organizations on the morrow of the Second World War; to visit the halls of the General Assembly and the Security Council; to attend meetings of the American Society of International Law and the Institute of International Law, where he so frequently took the floor to shed light on their debates; to attend sittings of the International Court of Justice in the years 1960-1969. I could hardly undertake this task; there are others much more qualified to do so. What I wish to do is to recall him as a great jurist I knew and a delightful human being; in short, a judge and a great friend whom I learned to admire.
† Editor’s note: For an answer paralleling the experience of Justice Holmes, see the companion piece by Philip Jessup, Jr., infra at pp. 908–09.
1 Jessup, P., Transnational Law 1 (1956)Google Scholar.
2 Id. at 15–16.
3 We raised these issues at a conference at New York University sponsored by Professor Thomas M. Franck, who brought together several members of the U.S. federal and Canadian judiciary with six colleagues to discuss “The Future of the World Court.” I had the honor of presiding over the deliberations. See also Jessup’s lecture at the Hague Academy, To Form a More Perfect United Nations, 129 Recueil des Cours 1 (1970 I).
4 See his Jacob Blaustein lectures, The Price of International Justice (1971); and The Development of a United States Approach toward the International Court of Justice, 5 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1 (1971).
5 South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. S. Afr.; Liberia v. S. Afr.), Preliminary Objections, 1962 ICJ Rep. 319, 425–30 (Judgment of Dec. 21) (Jessup, J., sep. op.).
6 Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co., Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain) (New Application), 1970 ICJ Rep. 4, 32, para. 33 (Judgment of Feb. 5).
7 1962 ICJ Rep. at 430.
8 South West Africa (Ethiopia v. S. Afr.; Liberia v. S. Afr.), Second Phase, 1966 ICJ Rep. 6, 325 (Judgment of July 18) (Jessup, J., dissenting).
9 Id. at 441.
10 Id. at 442.
11 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 ICJ Rep. 16 (Advisory Opinion of June 21). See id. at 57, para. 131.
12 Such situations may be resolved by an “agreed, or failing that by an equal division of the overlapping areas, or by agreements for joint exploitation, the latter solution appearing particularly appropriate when it is a question of preserving the unity of a deposit.” North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (FRG/Den.; FRG/Neth.)( 1969 ICJ Rep. 3, 52, para. 99 (Judgment of Feb. 20).
13 See Jessup’s separate opinion, id. at 67–85. Here, again, he showed mastery of the subject, both in law and in fact, an inside knowledge of all the complexities resulting from previous oil explorations and agreements on the matter concluded by states.
14 Jessup, , Intervention in the International Court, 75 AJIL 903 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Cf Diversity and Uniformity in the Law of Nations, 58 AJIL 341 (1964) (reprinting the bulk of the lecture).
16 Id. at 358.
17 Id at 352.
