Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:59:59.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “New” Countries and the “New” International Law: The United Nations’ Special Conference on Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Edward McWhinney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A good deal of the creative energy of international lawyers in recent years has been absorbed in the continuing Soviet-Western debate revolving around the special Soviet juridical concept of peaceful coexistence or, in its Western-style and United Nations-endorsed euphemism, the concept of friendly relations and co-operation among states with differing political and social systems. Whether in the United Nations Sixth (Legal) Committee, in the authoritative, if private, International Law Association, even in the World Federation of United Nations Associations' scientific seminars, or at times in the International Law Commission itself, the discussion over coexistence (friendly relations) has tended to be a straight Soviet-Western dialectical contest that has been concerned sometimes with hammering out minimum principles of Soviet-Western accommodation in the Cold War era, and sometimes seemingly with the making of propaganda points that would be helpful in carrying on future Soviet-Western dialogues or even more perhaps in carrying the ideological war to the neutralist, uncommitted countries. The apparent achievement of a reasonably firm or stable Soviet-Western detente, with a consequent increasing focus on extension and development of minimum principles of world public order on a basis of reciprocity and mutuality of interest as between the two main competing legal value systems has been amply commented on already. In a sense, the international law of the detente, constructed on a pragmatic basis of inter-systems agreement or consensus, and demonstrated empirically in the actual record of such de facto accommodations and give-and-take, represents a species of “new” international law.* At least, it represents a new gloss on the old customary international law, albeit a gloss that is specially concerned, in the special societal conditions of the contemporary world community, with considerations of security, of stability of settled expectations, and of certainty and the avoidance of surprise in inter-group (more accurately inter-systems) relations—the old “Watchman’s State” legal virtues.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , January 1966 , pp. 1 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1966 

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 literature concerning peaceful coexistence (friendly relations) as a special juridical concept is already legion. See, for example, Hazard, J. N., “Codifying Peaceful Coexistence,” 55 A.J.I.L. 109 (1961)Google Scholar; idem, “Coexistence Codification Beconsidered,” 57 A.J.I.L. 88 (1963); Crane, E. D., “Soviet Attitude toward International Space Law,” 56 A.J.I.L. 685, at 710 et seq, (1962)Google Scholar; O. J. Lissitzyn, International Law in a Divided World, at pp. 18-21 (1963); Lapenna, I., “The Legal Aspects and Political Significance of the Soviet Concept of Coexistence,” 12 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 737 (1963)Google Scholar; Lipson, L., “Peaceful Coexistence,” 29 Law and Contemporary Problems 871 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McWhinney, E., “'Peaceful Coexistence’ and Soviet-Western International Law,” 56 A.J.I.L. 951 (1962)Google Scholar; McWhinney, “Peaceful Coexistence” and Soviet-Western International Law (1964); idem (ed.), Law, Foreign Policy, and the East-West Détente (1964).

2 International Law Association, Report of the Fiftieth Conference, Brussels, 1962, pp. 260-374 (1963); Report of the Fifty-First Conference, Tokyo, 1964 (1965).

3 Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Eelations and Cooperation among States (World Federation of United Nations Associations Seminar on International Law, held at Smolenice, Bratislava, April, 1965) (to be published in book form, 1966).

4 McWhinney, , “Changing International Law Method and Objectives in the Era of the Soviet-Western Détente,” 59 A.J.I.L. 1 (1965).Google Scholar

5 Hazard, , “New Personalities to Create New Law,” 58 A.J.I.L. 952 (1964)Google Scholar; and compare idem, “Coexistence Law Bows Out,” 59 A.J.I.L. 59 (1965).

6 Compare Hazard, “The Sixth Committee and New Law,” 57 A.J.I.L. 604 (1963).

7 Kes. 1966 (XVIII), Dec. 16, 1963, par. 1, U.N. General Assembly, 18th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 15 (A/1515), p. 70.

8 The final membership of the Mexico City Special Committee (26 countries in all) comprised: Argentina, Australia, Burma, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Prance, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, U.S.S.R., United Arab Bepublic, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

9 Loo. tit., par. 2.

10 See the comment by Hazard, 58 A.J.I.L. 952, 953 (1964).

11 In this regard, familiar names on the Special Committee included Dr. Vratislav Pěchota of Czechoslovakia, who had been one of the prime sponsors of Ees. 1966 (XVIII) in the General Assembly; Dr. Krishna Eao of India; and Dr. T. O. Elias of Nigeria.

12 Lack of departmental seniority need not affect intellectual competence or expertise in the particular area of specialization concerned, of course: its most serious consequence is to inhibit the authority to make sudden compromises or to take new initiatives when these seem necessary in the course of debate, without first clearing these with the head of the Foreign Ministry at home. This seems actually to have operated to the embarrassment and political disadvantage of the West in the Mexico City sessions. See the discussions below.

13 See General Assembly Ees. 1966 (XVIII), Dec. 16, 1963, preamble.

14 Doc. A/C. 6/L. 505, Oct. 26, 1962.

15 Ees. 1815 (XVII), Dec. 18, 1962, U.N. General Assembly, 17th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 17 (A/5217), p. 66.

16 Zoo. cit., par. 5.

17 Principle (2) above.

18 Docs. A/AC. 119/SR. 1, Oct. 16, 1964, to A/AC. 119/SE. 43, Oct. 30, 1964.

19 Doc. A/5746, Nov. 16, 1964.

20 Comments received from governments, Doc. A/5725, July 22, 1964; Addendum, Doc. A/5725/Add. 1, Aug. 11, 1964; Systematic Summary of the Comments, Statements, Proposals and Suggestions of Member States, Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 1, June 24, 1964; Corrigendum, Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 1/Corr. 1, Aug. 7, 1964.

21 Summary of the practice of the United Nations and of views expressed in the United Nations by Member States, Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 2, June 10, 1964.

22 Loc. cit., par. 5.

23 As to the “new” or “auxiliary” sources of international law, in Soviet-bloc thinking, see MIcWhinney, “Peaceful Coexistence” and Soviet-Western International ‘— Law 61-64 (1964). Specifically, as to General Assembly. resplutiQna.as._sources_of international law, see ibid. 106; McWhinney, “Changing International Law Method and Objectives in the Era of the Soviet-Western Détente,” loc. cit. note 4 above, at 14-15; Cheng, B., “United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space: ‘Instant’ International Customary Law” 5 Indian J.I.L. 23 (1965)Google Scholar; and see the more detailed discussion on this point in the concluding section below.

24 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 6; Report of Special Committee, Doc. A/5746, p. 19.

25 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 8; Report of Special Committee, Doe. A/5746, p. 20.'

26 Par. 5. Italics added.

27 Doc. A/AC. 119/L.7; Report of Special Committee, Doc. A/5746, p. 20.

28 Docs. A/AC. 119/L. 15; A/5746, p. 23.

29 See, for example, the addresses by Dr. Pěchota (Czechoslovakia), Docs. A/AC. 119/SE. 4, p. 6, and Ibid., SB. 8, pp. 4-6; Dr. Krishna Bao (India), Doc. A/AC. 119/ SE. 3, pp. 7-8; Dr. Khalil (United Arab Republic), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 8, p. 9; and by Mr. Dadzie (Ghana), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 5, p. 17.

30 See, for example, the addresses by Mr. Schwebel (U.S.A.), Docs. A/AC. 119/SE. 3, p. 12, and ibid., SB. 15, pp. 17-18; Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), Docs. A/AC. 119/8R. 5, pp. 12-13, and ibid., SR. 16, p. 13; M. Monod (Prance), Doc. A/AC. 119/ SE. 6, pp. 5-6; and by Sir Kenneth Bailey (Australia) Docs. A/AC. 119/SE. 10, p. 7, and ibid., SR. 17, p. 12.

31 See, for example, Dr. Pěchota (Czechoslovakia), loc. cit.; Mr. Khlestov (U.S.S.R.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 5, p. 8.

32 See, for example, Mr. Schwebel (U.S.A.), Docs. A/AC. 119/SE. 3, p. 14, and ibid., SR. 15, pp. 15, 18; Mr. Arangio-Ruiz (Italy), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 16, p. 8; Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), ibid., p. 13; Mr. Salcedo Delima (Venezuela), ibid., p. 17.

33 See, for example, Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), loc. cit.

34 See, for example, Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), ibid.; Mr. Sehwebel (U.S.A.), Doe. A/AC. 119/SE. 15, p. 18.

35 See Yugoslav draft resolution, Doe. A/AC. 119/L. 7, loo. cit., par 4.

36 See Ghana-India-Yugoslavia draft resolution, Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 15, loo. cit., par. 3.

37 See, for example, Mr. Cristescu (Rumania), Docs. A/AC. 119/SE. 7, p. 18, and v iUd.fSR. 16, p. 6; Mr. Khlestov (U.S.S.R.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 14, p. 12.

38 Mr. Khlestov (U.S.S.E.), loc. cit.

39 See, for example, Mr. Khlestov (U.S.S.E.), loo. cit.

40 See, for example, Dr. Pěchota (Czechoslovakia), Docs. A/AC. 119/SR. 4, p. 6, and ibid., SB. 8, pp. 6-7; Mr. Sahović (Yugoslavia), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 9, p. 22; Mr. Khlestov (U.S.S.B.), Docs. A/AC. 119/SR. 5, p. 9, and ibid., SB. 14, p. 11; Mr. Khalil (United Arab Eepublic), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 8, pp. 8-9; Mr. El-Reedy (U.A.B.), ibid., SB. 17, p. 16; and Mr. Dadzie (Ghana), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 10, pp. 14-15.

41 See, for example, Mr. Khlestov (U.S.S.B.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 14, p. 11.

42 See, for example, variously, Mr. Blix (Sweden), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 10, p. 9; Mr. Ignacio-Pinto (Dahomey), (bid., p. 12; Mr. Elias (Nigeria), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 7, p. 22; Mr. Schwebel (U.S.A.), Docs. A/AC. 119/SR. 15, pp. 15, 19, and ibid., SR. 17, p. 18; Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 16, p. 14.

43 By Sir Kenneth Bailey (Australia), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 17, pp. 14-15.

44 See, for example, Dr. Krishna Rao (India), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 3, p. 8; Mr. Castañeda (Mexico), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 9, pp. 15-16; Mr. Cristescu (Rumania), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 16A p. 6.

45 See, for examr-\., Mr. Ohtaka (Japan), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 5, p. 15; Mr. Riphage-- (Netherlands), Do'c. A/AC. 119/SR. 7, p. 11; Mr. Blix (Sweden), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 10, p. 11; Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 16, p. 15.

46 Drafting Committee Paper No. 10 and Corr. 1, Report of the Special Committee, Doc. A/5746, Nov. 16, 1964, p. 51.

47 Ibid., p. 51 et seq.

48 Ibid., pp. 71-73.

49 Ibid., pp. 71-72.

50 Report of the Special Committee, op. cit., pp. 69-70.

51 Ibid., p. 74.

52 Ibid., p. 60.

53 Ibid., p. 67.

54 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 6; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 77.

55 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 8; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 78.

56 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 18; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 80.

57 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 19; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 81.

58 See, for example, Mr. Prusa (Czechoslovakia), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 18, pp. 3-6; Mr. Vilfan (Yugoslavia), ibid., pp. 6-8; Mr. Cristescu (Rumania), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 19, p. 11; Mr. Fedorov (U.S.S.R.), Doe. A/AC. 119/SE. 20, pp. 4-7; Mr. Bierzanek (Poland), ibid., p. 10; and see also Dr. Krishna Eao (India), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 23, p. 6.

59 Mr. Fedorov (U.S.S.E.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 20, pp. 4-5.

60 See, for example, Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 19, pp. 5-8; Mr. Colombo (Argentina), ibid., p. 18; Mr. Monod (France), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 21, p. 15; Mr. Fattal (Lebanon), ibid., p. 21; Mr. Castaneda (Mexico), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 22, p. 14; Mr. Sehwebel (U.S.A.), ibid., pp. 19, 23; Mr. Ignaeio-Pinto (Dahomey), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 23, p. 11; Mr. Khalil (United Arab Eepublic), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 24, pp. 4-5; Sir Kenneth Bailey (Australia), ibid., pp. 16-20.

61 The main intellectual pressures for general acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court came from Japan, recalling in this regard the strong proposals advanced by Japanese speakers at the 1964 (Tokyo) meeting of the International Law Association. See, for example, Mr. Hatano (Japan), Docs. A/AC. 119/SE. 18, p. 10; SE. 21, p. 17; SE. 24, p. 10. And see also Mr. Elias (Nigeria), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 18, p. 10; Mr. Arangio-Euiz (Italy), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 21, p. 9; Mr. Sehwebel (U.S.A.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 22, p. 18; Mr. Blix (Sweden), ibid., p. 25; Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 24, p. 8; Sir Kenneth Bailey (Australia), ibid., pp. 19-20.

62 See, for example, Mr. Cristescu (Rumania), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 19, p. 13; Mr. Fedorov (U.S.S.E.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 20, p. 6; Mr. Khlestov (U.S.S.R.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 22, p. 28; Mr. Bierzanek (Poland), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 20, p. 8; Mr. Fattal (Lebanon), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 21, p. 21; Dr. Pechota (Czechoslovakia), ibid., p. 25; Justice U. San Maung (Burma), ibid., p. 26; Mr. Dadzie (Ghana), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 22, pp. 6-8; Dr. Krishna Rao (India), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 23, pp. 8-9; Mr. Khalil (United Arab Republic), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 24, pp. 5-6.

63 See, for example, Mr. Dadzie (Ghana), loc. cit., p. 6.

64 See, generally, Mr. Fattal (Lebanon), loc. cit., p. 23; Justice U. San Mating (Burma), loc. cit.; Mr. Dadzie (Ghana), loc. cit., p. 6; Mr. Khalil (United Arab Eepublie), loc. cit., p. 6.

65 See Mr. Schwebel (U.S.A.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 22, p. 17; Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 24, p. 9.

66 See, for example, Mr. Dadzie (Ghana), loc. tit., p. 9.

67 See Mr. Castañeda (Mexico), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 22, pp. 11-12.

68 See, for example, Mr. Vilfan (Yugoslavia), Doc. A/AC. 119/SK. 23, p. 12.

69 Op. cit., p. 104.

70 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 6; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 109.\

71 Published in Izvestiya, Jan. 4, 1964, p. 1; 16 Current Digest of the Soviet Press 3 (No. 1, Jan. 29, 1964).

72 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 7; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 109.

73 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 27; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 114.

74 As to Rumania's position, see the address by Mr. Cristescu, Doc. A/AC. 119/8R. 26, pp. 6-9.

75 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 24; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 113; and see also the supporting address by Mr. Castaneda (Mexico), with its valuable review of Latin American historical practice, Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 30, pp. 4-13.

76 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 8; Keport of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 110.

77 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 26; Keport of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 112.

78 See Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 26, p. 6; Mr. Monod (France), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 28, p. 10; Mr. Schwebel (U.S.A.), Doe. A/AC. 119/SR. 29, p. 10; Mr. Kiphagen (Netherlands), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 30, p. 15.

79 Mr. Sinclair (United Kingdom), loc. cit., p. 5.

80 Ibid.; and see also Mr. Monod (France), loc cit.; Mr. Fattal (Lebanon), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 30, p. 16; Mr. Schwebel (U.S.A.), ibid., p. 23.

81 Mr. El-Reedy (United Arab Republic), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 30, p. 20.

82 Mr. Kazantsev (U.S.S.E.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 28, p. 12.

83 Mr. Vanderpuye (Ghana), Doe. A/AC. 119/SE. 29, p. 6.

84 Mr. Vanderpuye (Ghana), loc. cit.

85 See Mr. Sinclair (United Kinglom), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 26, p. 5.

86 See Mr. Kubrycht (Czechoslovakia), Doe. A/AC. 119/SE. 25, p. 6; Mr. Bierzanek (Poland), ibid., pp. 10-12, and SR. 31, pp. 9-11; Mr. Olszowka (Poland), Doe. A/AC. 119/SR. 32, p. 28; Mr. Kazantsev (TJ.S.S.R.), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 28, p. 17.

87 See the eloquent complaint by the Mexican delegate, listing past abuses from which Mexico had suffered in this context, and invoking also Mexico's own “Estrada doctrine. “ Address by Mr. Castafieda (Mexico), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 30, pp. 10-11.

88 Mr. Vanderpuye (Ghana), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 29, p. 7.

89 See Mr. Schwebel (U.S.A.), ibid., pp. 11-12.

90 Report, Doc. A/5746, Nov. 16, 1964, p. 141.

91 Ibid., p. 163.

92 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 6; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 148.

93 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 8; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 149.

94 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 7; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 148.

95 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 28; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 150.

96 Doc. A/AC. 119/L. 6; Report of Special Committee, op. cit., p. 148.

97 Doc. A/5746, Nov. 16, 1964, pp. 163-165.

98 See Mr. Khalil (United Arab Republic), Doe. A/AC. 119/SR. 35, pp. 9-10.

99 “ List … on which there is no consensus but for which there is support,” par. 4. Doc. A/5746, Nov. 16, 1964, pp. 163-165.

100 Mr. Khalil (United Arab Republic), loe. cit.

101 “ List … on which there is no consensus but for which there is support,” par. 10, loc. cit.

102 Ibid., par. 3.

103 Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 33, p. 5 (Dr. Pechota, Czechoslovakia), p. 14 (Mr. Cristescu, Rumania), p. 10 (Mr. Sahović, Yugoslavia) ; SR. 35, pp. 17-18 (Mr. Khlestov, U.S.S.R.); SR. 33, p . 9 (Mr. Moreno, Mexico); SR. 35, p . 10 (Mr. Khalil, United Arab Republic), p. 16 (Dr. Krishna Rao, India), p. 20 (Mr. Agoro, Nigeria).

104 Mr. Dadzie (Ghana), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 35, p. 21.

105 Mr. Gibbs (United Kingdom), ibid., p. 9; Mr. Schwebel (U.S.A.), ibid., p. 13; Mr. Ohtaka (Japan), ibid., p. 22; Sir Kenneth Bailey (Australia), ibid., p. 24.

106 “List … on which there is no consensus but for which there is support,” par. 6, loc. cit.; and see Mr. Moreno (Mexico), Doc. A/AC. 119/SR. 33, p. 7.

107 Loc. cit., par. 10; and see Mr. Khalil (United Arab Republic), Doc. A/AO. 119/SR. 35, p. 11, and Dr. Krishna Eao (India), ibid., p. 16.

108 “List … on which there is no consensus but for which there is support,” par. 2, loc. cit.

109 Dr. Pěchota (Czechoslovakia), Doc. A/AC. 119/SK. 33, p. 5; Mr. Cristescu (Rumania), ibid., p. 12; Mr. Olszowka (Poland), Doc. A/AC. 119/SK. 35, p. 4.

110 See, for example, Mr. Gibbs (United Kingdom), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 35, p. 8; Sir Kenneth Bailey (Australia), ibid., pp. 23-24.

111 “List … on which there is no consensus but for which there is support,” par. 5, loc. cit.

112 Mr. Deleau (France), Doc. A/AC. 119/SE. 35, p. 6; Mr. Gibbs (United Kingdom), ibid., p. 7; Mr. Ohtaka (Japan), ibid., p. 22.

113 See, variously, Mr. Moreno (Mexico), Doe. A/AC. 119/SR. 33, p. 8; Mr. Khalil (United Arab Republic), ibid. SR. 35, p. 12; Mr. Dadzie (Ghana), ibid., p. 22, Mr. Cristescu (Rumania), ibid. SR 33, pp. 12-14, and SR. 35, pp. 24-25; Mr. Khlestov (U.S.S.R.), ibid. SR. 35, p. 19.

114 Due to the lengthy debate in Mexico City over the first four principles of Friendly Relations, discussed above, the remaining three principles (indicated above) could not be considered at all. The question of Methods of Fact-Finding, which had also been listed for study in Mexico City (see above), was in fact reached as the last item in the agenda; but so little time remained for discussion that it was resolved (by 22 votes to none, with 4 abstentions) merely to recommend that the General Assembly do no more than take note of the matter and bring it to the attention of Member States of the XJ.N. with a view to their written comments in the future, the resolution reciting the absence of expression of opinion by any more than a few Member States up to date and the lack of time for full consideration at Mexico City.xml