No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 71 AJIL 567 (1977).
2 Id.568
3 UN CONF. On the Law of Treaties, Off. Recs. Summary Recs., 1st Sess. (1968) (29th mtg.) 152, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/11 (1970).
4 Declaration on the Prohibition of Military, Political and Economic Coercion in the Conclusion of Treaties, id. Docs, of the Conf. (1968-1969) 285, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/11/Add.2 (1971).
5 G. Tunkin, Theory of International Law 14 (W. Butler trans. 1974).
6 See generally Malawer, , “Coerced Treaties” and the Convention on the Law of Treaties, in Malawer, S., Studies in International Law 31, 38 n. 37 (2d ed. 1977)Google Scholar (originally appearing as A New Concept of Consent and World Public Order: “Coerced Treaties” and the Convention on the Law of Treaties,4 Vand. J. Trans. L. 1 (1970)).
7 UN Doc. A/AC.125/SR.46, at 6-7 (1966), as quoted in S. Malawer, Imposed Treaties and International Law 125 (1977) (originally appearing in 7 Calif. W. INT. L.J. 5 (1977)).
8 Soviet writers continually struggle to justify these treaties. See Miasnikov, , The Manchu Invasion of the Amur River Valley and the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk, 6 Chinese L. & Govt. 22 (1973-74)Google Scholar (contending the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk was neither unequal nor imposed).