Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:20:39.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Shimon Agranat
Get access

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
The Madrid Conference Demonstration Trial – Rescue of Hostages Case
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1981 , pp. 142 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1981

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 The Corfu Channel Case (Preliminary Objection) 1948, I.C.J. Reports 15, 28.

2 See the note by J.M.J., on “The Corfu Channel Case: Preliminary Objection” in (1947) 24 British Yearbook of International Law 409, 410.Google Scholar

3 Minorities' Schools Case, Reports of P.I.C.J. Series A, No. 15, pp. 22–23; see the passage cited by Rosenne, S. in his book, The Internationl Court of Justice (1954) 287.Google Scholar

4 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law (7th ed.) vol. 2, p. 190.Google Scholar

5 Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States (1963) 355–358 Google Scholar; Stone, Julius, Aggression and World Order (1958)Google Scholar Chaps. 1, 2 and 3.

6 Exclusive power—Stone, op. cit., at p. 99, n. 14, citing H. Lauterpacht in (1953) 30 B. Yrbk. Int. L. 206, 220; non-exclusive competence — Rosenne, op. cit., pp. 45–46.

7 Op. cit., at p. 99.

8 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 59, n. 1.

9 Op. cit., at pp. 56–57.

10 See the note in (1947) 24 B.Yrbk.Int.L. 410.

11 1949, I.C.J. Reports (Merits) 4.

12 Corfu Channel Case (Merits) I.C.J. Reports (1949) p. 35.

13 (1954) 54 Am. J.I.L. 545.

14 Bowett, D. W., Self-Defense in International Law (1958) 11, 270.Google Scholar

15 Op. cit. at p. 21.

16 Hohfeld, W. N., Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied to Judicial Reasoning (1923) 38–50 Google Scholar; Paton, and Derham, , A Textbook of Jurisprudence (4th ed.) 292.Google Scholar

17 (12th ed.) edited by P.J. Fitzgerald, p. 42.

18 Bowett, op. cit., at 31.

19 Op. cit., at p. 9.

20 Ibid., at p. 51.

21 International Law (2nd ed.) vol. 1, p. 242.

22 General Theory of Law and State (1949) 333.

23 Op. cit. at p. 10.

24 Ibid.

25 Waldock, C. H. M., “The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law” (1952) 2 Hague Recueil des Cours 464.Google Scholar

26 (1938) 38 Am.J.I.L. 82; see also Moore, J., Digest of International Law vol. 2, p. 409.Google Scholar

27 Jennings, op. cit., at p. 89.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid., at p. 92.

30 Jennings, p. 89.

31 Cited in Bowett, op. cit., at p. 142.

32 Waldock, op. cit., at p. 459.

33 Op. cit., at vol. 2, pp. 187–188.

34 Op. cit., at p. 33.

35 Op. cit., at p. 478.

36 (1963) 252.

37 Waldock, ibid., at p. 495; Weightman, M. A., “Self-Defense in International Law” (1951) 37 Va. L.R. 1115.Google Scholar

38 Op. cit. at p. 87.

39 See also Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 526; Waldock, op. cit., pp. 406–7; Fawcett, J.E.S., “Intervention in International Law (1961) 2 Hague Recueil Des Cours 465 Google Scholar; Brownlie, op. cit. at p. 255; J. P. I. Fonteyne's essay, “Forcible Self-Help by States to Protect Human Rights” etc., in the book Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations, Lillich, R., ed. (1973) Appendix B, p. 198.Google Scholar

40 Fonteyne, ibid.

41 Bowett, ibid. at p. 103; Fawcett, ibid.

42 Bowett, op. cit. at p. 88.

43 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 280; Fonteyne in the above book edited by Lillich, p. 198; E. Frey-Wouters in the same book, pp. 22–23.

44 See on this subject Lauterpacht, H., International Law and Human Rights (1950) especially pp. 32–33 Google Scholar; Fonteyne, op. cit., at pp. 198–199; essay of M. Reisman and M. S. McDougal, “Humanitarian Intervention to Protect the Ibos” in Lillich, op. cit., appendix A, p. 177.

45 R. Baxter in Lillich, op. cit. at p. 53; emphasis added.

46 See infra.

47 Fonteyne, ibid.: compare also Bowett, op. cit., at pp. 91–94.

48 Op. cit., at p. 89.

49 International Law and Human Rights, p. 121.

50 Op. cit., at vol. 1, p. 647.

51 Ibid.

52 Op. cit., at vol. 1, pp. 626–7.

53 The legal position in Anglo-American municipal (constitutional) law is indeed different because of the theory that the factor of allegiance owed to a State by the citizens thereof implies a duty of protection on its part; Luria v. U.S. (1913) 231 U.S. 9, at p. 22; Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1946) A.C. 347 at p. 368.

54 Op. cit., at p. 94.

55 Op. cit., at p. 464.

56 Op. cit., at p. 250.

57 Op. cit., at p. 198.

58 Ibid.

69 E.g., the requirement of proportionality; Bowett, ibid.

60 See sec. A5 above.

61 Op. cit., at p. 467.

62 Sec. A5, para, (a), above.

63 See para. d of the preliminary observations in the preceding section.

64 Op. cit., at vol. 1, p. 649.

65 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., at vol. 1, p. 276.

66 Bowett, op. cit., at p. 89; Restatement of the Law, Second, on Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1965) sec. 183 (b), p. 548.

67 Included in the book Aerial Piracy and International Law by E. McWhinney (1971) 118.

68 Bowett, op. cit., at p. 90, who, however, disapproves of this approach.

69 ibid., at p. 10.

70 Bowett, ibid., at p. 90.

71 Jennings, “The Caroline and McLeod Cases”, op. cit., at p. 91; see also the trenchant criticism of the doctrine in Brierly, , The Law of Nations (6th ed.) 404–5.Google Scholar

72 Bowett, ibid., at p. 51.

73 Jennings, ibid., at pp. 85–87.

74 Jennings, ibid., at pp. 85–6.

75 Ibid., at p. 91.

76 International Law (1861) 91.

77 Ibid., at p. 92.

78 Op. cit., at p. 90.

79 Op. cit., at p. 90.

80 Op. cit., at pp. 185–6.

81 Aggression and World Order, 95.

82 “It is a matter of surprise that the precise provisions of Article 2(4) are so often quite overlooked by learned advocates of the extreme view”.

83 “The Control of Foreign Intervention in Internal Conflict” (1969) 9 Va. J.I.L. 262

84 “Rescue at Entebbe: Legal Aspects” (1976) 6 Israel Yearbook of Human Rights 324.

85 Lillich, , ed., Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations at p. 177.Google Scholar

86 Lillich, op. cit., at p. 200.

87 Bowett, ibid.

88 Stone, ibid.

89 Lillich, op. cit., at p. 54.

90 Brownlie, op. cit., at pp. 287, 433. As regards the last mentioned right this scholar is not entirely unequivocal in negating it when he states that it is “very doubtful that this form of intervention has any basis in the modern law”. Ibid.

91 “The North Atlantic Treaty of 1949” (1951) 2 Recueil Des Cours 202.

92 Waldock, op. cit., at p. 503. Bowett, op. cit., at pp. 183, 187.

93 Weightman, M.A., “Self-Defense in International Law” (1951) 37 Va. L.R. 1111.Google Scholar

94 Goodhart, ibid.

95 Op. cit., p. 95, n. 5.

96 Op. cit., at p. 503.

97 In Lillich, op. cit., at p. 187, n. 88.

98 Waldock, ed., pp. 427–28.

99 Baxter in Lillich, op. cit., at p. 54.

100 A brief description of which appears in L.C. Green's article, op. cit., at pp. 314–315.

101 Ibid., at p. 329.

102 Op. cit., at pp. 186–187.

103 That is, the lawfulness of the initial phase of the marine force action, during which it was concentrated on saving the lives of nationals and evacuating them from the zone of danger.

104 This principle has been referred to in section A5 of this opinion in connection with the subject of general self-defense but it is also apposite to the right of forcible intervention to protect nations, which is an aspect of the general right.

105 See sec. B, para. c of this opinion.

106 As was pointed out in sec. DI above.

107 Compare, McWhinney, Edward, “The Illegal Diversion of Aircraft and International Law” (1973) 1 Hague Recueil Des Cours, 303 ff.Google Scholar, and 325.

108 See the Statement of Facts.

109 Statement of Facts.

110 Op. cit., at p. 319.

111 See also the explanation of the rationale behind this view in the passage quoted from Bowett's book at the end of sec. C of this opinion.

112 See the Statement of Facts.

113 In his article “The Nature and Control of International Terrorism” (1974) 4 Israel Yearbook of Human Rights 157.

114 See Section A2 of this opinion.

115 See in particular sec. E 1, 5 of this opinion.

116 See the rule of “Attribution” according to international law, as formulated in the Restatement of the law, Second, on the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, section 169 and Comment d, pp. 512–3.

117 Hyde, , International Law, (2nd. ed.) vol. 1, pp. 723–4Google Scholar; see the Statement of Judge Moore in the case of S.S. Lotus, Reports, P.C.I.J. Section A, No. 10, Judgment No. 9, p. 88: “It is well settled that a State is bound to use due diligence to prevent the commission within its dominions of criminal acts against another nation or its people” (cited in Hyde, ibid. p. 724, n. 7).