Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Unspoken Rules and Superpower Dominance pp 161–193Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Spheres of Influence and International Law

  • Chapter

  • 37 Accesses

Abstract

We have seen, in the previous chapter, that when the United States and the Soviet Union have intervened in their respective spheres of influence, they have sought to justify their actions to the world at large, primarily by appealing to the needs of their perceived security requirements. They have also sought to justify their actions in terms of international law, but the status in international law, both of spheres of influence and of the actions influencing powers have taken, is uncertain and needs to be determined. The problem about this is that what one jurist will count as law another may not and what is law to one state is not necessarily considered law by another. A prior question, therefore, is: What is international law? Accordingly, the first part of this chapter discusses the nature of international law, both western conceptions and the Soviet conception. The second part deals with spheres of influence in the history of international law, and the third summarizes legal argument concerning the actions the influencing powers took in the same four examples considered in the last chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. On positivism, see H.L.A. Hart, ‘Legal Positivism’, The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (ed.) P. Edwards (New York: Collier-Macmillan, 1967) vol. 4;

    Google Scholar 

  2. and H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) p. 253.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For this and subsequent references, see R. Dworkin, ‘The Model of Rules’, The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 35, no. 14 (1967–8) pp. 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M.S. McDougal with Lasswell and Riesman, ‘Theories about international law: prologue to a configurative jurisprudence’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 8, no. 2 (Apr. 1968) p. 196.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McDougal and Lasswell, ‘The identification and appraisal of diverse systems of public order’, American Journal of International Law, 53 (1959) p. 3. See also p. 5 in Studies in World Public Order (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosalyn Higgins, ‘Policy and impartiality: the uneasy relationship in international law’, International Organisation, vol XXIII, no. 4 (Autumn 1969) p. 930. A review of Falk’s Legal Order in a Violent World.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rosalyn Higgins, ‘Policy considerations and the international judicial process’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 17 (1968), pp. 58–9. Note: The terms ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’ should be taken in a limited rather than an absolute sense. Neutral laws and an objective judiciary are ideals.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. For this view, see I. Brownle, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) ch. 1. See also R.A. Falk, ‘The reality of international law’, review article, World Politics, vol. XIV, no. 2 (Jan. 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  9. B.A. Ramundo, Peaceful Coexistence (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins, 1967) p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Y. Korovin, ‘International Law Today’, International Affairs (Moscow), 7 (July 1961) p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. Baratashvili, ‘International law principle of peaceful coexistence’, International Affairs (Moscow), 2 (Feb. 1972) p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See Rosalyn Higgins, Conflict of Interests, International Law in a Divided World (London: Bodley Head, 1965) pp. 101–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Tunkin, ‘Coexistence and International Law’, in Tunkin (ed.), Contemporary International Law (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969) pp. 13, 14 and 17.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Karl Marx, ‘Preface to the Critique of Political Economy’, K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1951) p. 329.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Tunkin, ‘The Soviet Union and international law’, International Affairs (Moscow), 11 (Nov. 1959) p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  16. I. Lapenna, ‘International law viewed through Soviet eyes’, Yearbook of World Affairs (1961) p. 223.

    Google Scholar 

  17. V.I. Fyodorov, ‘The imperialist doctrine of intercepting revolution’, International Affairs (Moscow), 5 (May 1966) p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kozhevnikov, op. cit., p. 12; see also T.A. Taracouzio, The Soviet Union and International Law (New York: Macmillan, 1935) pp. 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. McWhinney, ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ and Soviet-Western International Law (Leyden: Sythoff, 1964) pp. 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  20. N. Jamogotch, Soviet-East European Dialogue: International Relations of a New Type? (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1968) pp. 94–5.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See also B. Miroshnichenku, ‘Socialist internationalism and Soviet foreign policy’, International Affairs (Moscow), 5 (May 1966)

    Google Scholar 

  22. I. Dudinsky, ‘A community of equal and sovereign nations’, International Affairs (Moscow), 11 (Nov. 1964)

    Google Scholar 

  23. and S. Sanakoyev, ‘The basis of the relations between the socialist countries’, International Affairs (Moscow), 7 (July 1958). All cited by Jamogotch.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cited by Ivo Lapenna, ‘The Soviet concept of “Socialist” internationalism’, The Yearbook of World Affairs (1975) p. 261.

    Google Scholar 

  25. E. Korovin, ‘Proletarian internationalism in world relations’, International Affairs (Moscow), 2 (Feb. 1958) pp. 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  26. S. Kovalev, ‘Sovereignty and the international obligations of socialist countries’, Pravda, 26 Sept. 1968. CDSP, vol. XX, no. 39 (16 Oct. 1968) pp. 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  27. On this, see A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1947), rev. edn.

    Google Scholar 

  28. and Lord Denis Lloyd, The Idea of Law (Hardmondsworth: Penguin, 1973) chs. 4 and 5.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M.F. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969) p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  30. L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. 1 (London: Longmans Green, 1947) 6th edn. (ed. by H. Lauterpacht) p. 514.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pitt Cobbett, Cases on International Law (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1947) 6th edn., vol. 1, Peace, p. 119.

    Google Scholar 

  32. W.E. Hall, A Treatise on International Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924) 8th edn., p. 154.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See also Hall’s A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894) p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cited by Hannis Taylor, A Treatise on International Public Law (Chicago: Callaghan, 1901) p. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Elihu Root, ‘The real Monroe Doctrine’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 8, no. 3 (July 1914) p. 432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. A. Pearce Higgins, ‘The Monroe Doctrine’, British Year-book of International Law, 1924, p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See T.M. Franck and E. Weisband, Word Politics, Verbal Strategy Among the Superpowers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972) passim.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See for instance report by the International Commission of Jurists, The Hungarian Situation and the Rule of Law (The Hague, 1957) pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J.W. Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power (London: Cape, 1967) p. 94. See also R.T. Bohan, ‘The Dominican Case: unilateral intervention’, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 60, no. 4 (Oct. 1966), and Quincy Wright, ‘Intervention 1956’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 51, no. 2 (Apr. 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  40. A.J. and A.V.W. Thomas, Working Paper, The Dominican Crisis 1965, the Ninth Hammarskjold Forum, J. Carey (ed.), (New York: Oceana Publications, 1967) p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Quincy Wright, ‘The Cuban quarantine’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 57, no. 3 (July 1963) pp. 549–53.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Leonard C. Meeker, ‘Defensive quarantine and the law’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 57, no. 3, (July 1963) p. 517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Letter from Norbert A. Schlei to Abram Chayes. See Appendix 1, Abram Chayes, The Cuban Missile Crisis (London: Oxford University Press, 1974) p. 133.

    Google Scholar 

  44. R.A. Falk, ‘The interplay of Westphalia and charter conceptions of international legal order’, in R.A. Falk and C.E. Black (eds.), The Future of the International Legal Order, vol. 1 (Princeton University Press, 1969) p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  45. R.A. Falk, ‘Zone II as a world order construct’, in J.N. Rosenau, V. Davis and M.A. East (eds.), The Analysis of International Politics (New York: Free Press, 1972) pp. 188 and 192.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Paul Keal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1983 Paul Ernest Keal

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Keal, P. (1983). Spheres of Influence and International Law. In: Unspoken Rules and Superpower Dominance. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06224-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation