Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:03:21.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Soviet Contribution to International Adjudication: Professor Krylov’S Jurisprudential Legacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Zigurds L. Zile
Zigurds L. Zile*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article deals with Professor Sergei Borisovich Krylov’s (1888-1958) work as an example of the impact of Soviet theory and practice on international adjudication. Krylov’s statements and performance regarding this institution are examined in the light of his relationship with his state. By bringing out some of the factors that motivate an individual acting in a state-oriented society, further appraisals of the rôle and the effective limits of international adjudication, with Soviet participation, may be aided.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 359 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1964

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 term ‘ ‘ adjudication,'’ as used here, describes a procedure whereby pacific settlement of an international dispute is sought by means of a binding decision of a third party; it thus includes arbitration. Insofar as the discussion concerns the International Court of Justice and its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, both contentious and advisory proceedings are included.

2 Berman, , ‘ ‘ The ‘ Right to Knowledge’ in the Soviet Union,'’ 54 Columbia Law Review 749, 756–764 (1954).Google Scholar

3 E.g., “ X X s “ ezd KPSS i zadachi sovetskoi pravovoi nauki [The Twentieth Congress of the CPSU and the Tasks of Soviet Legal Science],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 2 (1956), p . 3.

4 The writer has relied mainly on Krylov's biographies in: Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 10 (1958), p. 132; ibid., No. 1 (1959), p. 131; 1958 Soviet Yearbook of International Law 482; and 48 Annuaire, Institut de Droit International 472 (1959, II ) .

5 On Krylov's rôle in this project, see Hazard, book review, 54 A.J.I.L. 428 (1960).

6 Dumbarton Oaks Conference (1944) ; U.N. Conference on International Organization (U.N.C.I.O.), Committee of Jurists, Washington (1945); U.N.C.I.O., Commission 1/ Committees 1 & 2 and Commission IV/ Committees 1 & 2, San Francisco (1945); Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission, for a while chairman of Committee 5 (1945). 1946-1947 U.N. Year Book 43-48. Soviet biographies commonly list Krylov as a U.S.S.R. delegate to the first part (London) of the first session of the General Assembly. The list of delegates found ibid, at 304-307 does not corroborate this assertion.

7 Krylov, , “Les Notions Principales du Droit des Gens (La Doctrine Soviétique du Droit International),” 70 Hague Academy Eecueil des Cours 411 (1947, I ). Google Scholar For Krylov's own account, see S.K., “Gaagskaia i Gavanskaia Akademii mezhdunarodnogo pravo,” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 2 (1948), p. 53, at 54-55.

8 41 Annuaire, Institut de Droit International 275 (1947, I I ) .

9 Krylov succeeded Koretsky (1st to 3rd Sess.) and Kozhevnikov (4th to 5th Sess.) He was followed by Tunkin (since 9th Sess.)

10 Proposal by Mr. Krylov Concerning the Publication of the Documents of the International Law Commission, 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1955) 238-240, 246 (A/CN.4/Ser.A/ 1955).

11 Krylov worked mainly on the Third Committee (High Seas—Fishing—Conservation of Living Resources).

12 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 1 (1959), p. 131.

13 See the index in Sovetskoe Pravo, No. 1 (1927), pp. 167-181.

14 Krylov, Biudzhetnoe pravo SSSR: Federal'nye osnovy [The Budgetary Law of the U.S.S.R.: Federal Principles] (Leningrad, 1928).

15 E.g.,Krylov, “Optatsiia i plebistsit i nachalo samoopredeleniia v sovetskikh mezhdunarodnykh dogovorakh [Option and Plebiscite and the Principle of Self-Determination in Soviet Treaties],” Sovetskoe Pravo, No. 2 (1923), p. 43; Krylov, “Ob anglo-amerikanskoi i evropeiskoi kontinential'noi sudebnoi praktike v ee otnoshenii k sovetskoi vlasti [On Anglo-American and Continental Judicial Practice Relative to the Soviet Regime],” Sovetskoe Pravo, No. 5 (1926), p. 104; Krylov, “Vozmeshchenie ubytkov v mezhdunarodnom prave [Compensation for Damages in International Law],” Sovetskoe Pravo, No. 5 (1927), p. 53.

16 E.g., Krylov, “Sovetskoe konsul'skoe pravo [Soviet Consular Law],” Sovetskoe Pravo, No. 1 (1924), p. I ll ; Krylov, “Istoricheskii protsess razvitiia sovetskogo federalizma [The Historical Development of Soviet Federalism],” Ibid., No. 5 (1924), p. 36.

17 See Krylov, book review, Sovetskoe Pravo, No.4 (1926), p.126.A

18 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Bevoliutsiia Prava, No.1 (1930), p.3, at 4.

19 See Durdenevsky, book review, Sovetskoe Pravo, No.5 (1928), p.92.

20 Krylov, Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo [Private International Law] (Leningrad, 1930).

21 Kozhevnikov, book review, Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Bevoliutsiia Prava, No. 7 (1930), p. 218.

22 Raevieh, “ 0 sovremennom sostoianii sovetskoi literatury po mezhdunarodnomu chastnomu pravu [On the Present State of the Soviet Literature on Private International Law ] , “ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Bevoliutsiia Prava, No. 9 (1931), p. 144, at 145.

23 Kozhevnikov, loc. cit.note 21, at 219.

24 Raevieh, loc. cit.note 22, at 145.

25 Krylov, Vozdushnoe pravo SSSE [Air Law of the U.S.S.B.] (Leningrad, 1933).

26 Vinogradov, book review, Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo, No. 3 (1934), p. 119, at 122.

27 Krylov, letter to the editors, ibid.,Nos. 1-2 (1935), p. 228, at 229.

28 Stalin, “ On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.E.,” in Stalin, Problems of Leninism 679, 708 (Moscow, 1953). The decision to give the U.S.S.E. a foundation of socialist law was made in November, 1935. The phrase “stability of laws” was actually used by Stalin a year later.

29 Krylov, ‘ ‘ Mezhdunarodnopravovoe regulirovanie radiosviazi i radioveshchaniia,'' Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo, No. 6 (1936), p. 87.

30 Krylov, ‘ ‘ Sovetskoe pravo o radiosviazi i radioveshchanii [Soviet Law of Radio Communications and Eadio Broadcasting],” Sotsialisticheskaia Zakonnost', No. 3 (1938), p. 77.)

31 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 1 (1939), p. 129.

32 Krylov, “ ‘Kratkii kurs (istorii) VKP (B) ‘ i razrabotka istorii sovetskikh mezhdunarodno- pravovykh otnoshenii [The ‘Short Course of the History of the All-Union CP (B) ‘ and Preparation of a History of Soviet Attitudes towards International Law],“ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo, No. 6 (1938), p. 97.

33 Peretersky and Krylov, Mezhdunarodnoe ehastnoe pravo [Private International Law] (Moscow, 1940).

34 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 1 (1959), p. 131.

35 Krylov's output was highest in the 1920's and the 1950's. Soviet bibliographies indicate that he did not publish anything in 1932, 1934 (except for the release of the text of a speech given by him in March, 1933), 1935, 1937, 1942 and 1945. Sovetskaia literatura po mezhdunarodnomu pravu: Bibliografiia 1917-1957 [Soviet Literature on International Law: Bibliography 1917-1957] (Moscow, 1959); Literatura po sovetskomu pravu: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’ [Literature on Soviet Law: Index of Bibliography] (Moscow, I960).

36 See, generally, Triska, ‘ ‘ A Model for Study of Soviet Foreign Policy,'’ 52 American Political Science Review 64 (1958).

37 Korovin, Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe publiehnoe pravo [Contemporary Public International Law] 137 (Moscow, 1926); Memorandum on the Soviet Doctrine and Practice with Eespect to Arbitral Procedure (A/CN.4/36) (1950); Lapenna, Conceptions Sovigtiques de Droit International Public 297-298 (Paris, 1954). The distrust for non-Soviet adjudicators is great even on the level of private rights. Pisar, “Communist System of Foreign-Trade Adjudication,” 72 Harvard Law Review 1409, 1413- 1415 (1959). On primacy of negotiations, see Bogdanov, “Peregovory—Osnovnoe sredstvo mirnogo uregulirovaniia mezhdunarodnykh raznoglasii [Negotiations—The Basic Means for Peaceful Regulation of International Differences],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 7 (1957), p. 71.

38 Litvinov's Statement at the Conference on Russian Affairs, The Hague, July 12, 1922, in Sohn, Cases and Materials on World Law 1046 (1950).

39 P.C.I.J., Publications, Series B, No. 5 (1923).

40 P.C.I.J., Publications, Series C, No. 3, Vol. 1, p. 67 at 70 (1923).

41 Lisovsky, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law] § 149 (Kiev, 1955).

42 Krylov, “Sozdanie i nachalo deiatel'nosti Mezhdunarodnogo suda OVedinennykh Natsii [The Creation and the Commencement of Activities of the International Court of the United Nations],” in Hudson, Mezhdunarodnye sudy v proshlom i budushchem [International Courts Past and Future] 332, 334-336 (Russian trans., Moscow, 1947); Poliansky, Mezhdunarodnyi sud [The International Court] 48-53 (Moscow, 1951).

43 l4 U.N.C.I.O. Docs. 151 (1945); 13 Ibid.226.

44 Krylov, Materialy k istorii Organizatsii Ob’ ‘edinennykh Natsii [Materials on the History of the United Nations Organization] 212 (Moscow, 1949). Krylov's book was reviewed by Schapiro in 28 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 429 (1951), who characterized it as largely a dry documentary account, yet openly political in its aims. The second edition of Krylov's book, bearing the title “ Istoriia sozdaniia OON” [History of the Creation of the U.N.] (Moscow, 1960), does not contain the reference to the interests of socialist states.

45 U.N. General Assembly, 2nd Sess., Official Eecords, Eesolutions 103-104 (A/519) (1948); see also p. 373 below.

46 Despite the fact that Krylov had three successors on the bench—Golunsky (1952- 1953), Kozhevnikov (1953-1960), and Koretsky (I960-)—he enjoyed the unique distinction of being the only Soviet judge in the International Court who had ever written a fully separate opinion, until Koretsky's dissent on July 20, 1962. See also pp. 384-385 below.

47 E.g.,the two works by Krylov cited in notes 42 and 44 above. Also, Krylov, “Reglament Mezhdunarodnogo suda O b “ edinennykh Natsii [The Eules of the International Court of the United Nations ] , “ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 10 (1946), pp. 38 and 44.

48 For identification, see Krylov, Mezhdunarodnyi sud Organizatsii Ob’ ‘edinennykh Natsii [The International Court of the United Nations Organization] 5 (Moscow, 1958). Borisov's real identity at the time was well concealed. A clever use of the pen name was to have Borisov speak out in support of Krylov. E.g., Borisov, “Iuridicheskie izmyshleniia Gansa Kel'zena [The Juridical Concoctions of Hans Kelsen] (Hans Kelsen, The Communist Theory of Law, London, 1955),” Mezhdunarodnaia Zhizn', No. 10 (1955), p. 147. It is possible that Krylov has used other pen names as well. E.g., the following book review has been identified as Krylov's product: S. Sergeev, “Memuary delegata Konferentsii v San-Frantsisko [Memoirs of a Delegate to the San Francisco Conference] (Virginia Crocheron Gildersleeve, Many a Good Crusade: Memoirs, New York 1954),” Mezhdunarodnaia Zhizn', No. 1 (1956), p. 147. 47 Annuaire, Institut de Droit International 550 (1957, II ) .

49 This observation is borrowed from Kulski, , ‘ ‘ Soviet Comments on International Law and International Belations,” 46 A.J.I.L. 719, 722 (1952).Google Scholar

50 Krylov, op. tit.note 48 above.

51 Ibid,at 164

52 Ibid,at 4.

53 Poliansky,op. tit.note 42 above.

54 Ibid,at 233.

55 Korovin, “ Mezhdunarodnyi sud na sluzhbe anglo-amerikanskogo imperializma [The International Court in the Service of Anglo-American Imperialism],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 5 (1950), p. 57; Lisovsky, op. tit. note 41 above, §150.

56 Krylov,op. tit.note 48 above, at 163-164.

57 [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4.

58 [1950] ibid.65.

59 Ibid.128.

60 [1952]ibid.176.

61 Ibid.93.

62 [1950]ibid.221.

63 Krylov, ‘ ‘ Mirnoe razreshenie mezhdunarodnykh sporov [Pacific Settlement of International Disputes],” appearing as Ch. IX in Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo [International Law] 366 (Moscow, 1957).

64 Ibid.at 378.

65 Ibid,at 380-381.

66 3 Annuaire, Institut de Droit International 5 ff., 33-35 (1950,I).

67 [1948] I.C.J. Rep. 15.

68 Ibid.at 31-32 (joint separate opinion of Basdevant, Alvarez, Winiarski, Zoricic, DeVisscher, Badawi, and Krylov).

69 Simis, “Mezhdunarodnyi sud [The International Court],” a comment in 2(1) Oppenheim, Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo [International Law] 109, 111 (Russian trans., Moscow, 1949); Krylov, op. cit.note 44 above, at 223-224. Krylov also praised the Court for having restated the principle of voluntary jurisdiction in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Preliminary Objection), [1954] I.C.J. Rep. 19, and in the Case of the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft of the United States of America, ibid.99 and 103 (orders). Borisov, “Sessiia Mezhdunarodnogo suda OON v 1954 g. [The 1954 Term of the International Court of the U.N.] , “ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 8 (1954), p. 107, at 108.

70 Borisov, “ Albano-britanskii spor o kompetentsii Mezhdunarodnogo suda OON [The Albanian-British Dispute over the Jurisdiction of the International Court of the TJ.N.],“ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 11 (1948), p. 9, at 15; Krylov, op. cit. note 48 above, at 21.

71 The references, in notes 71-84, to International Law Commission (I.L.C.) 7th Sess., Summary Record (A/CN.4/SR. 282-330) (1955), and 8th Sess., Summary Record (A/CN.4/SR. 331-381) (1956), are cited by meeting and paragraph. The statement in the text is supported by 352nd Meeting, pars. 43-44.

72 I.L.C. Report, 7th Sess., 2 I.L.C. Yearbook (1955) (A/CN.4/SBR.A/1955/Add.l).

73 309th Meeting, pars. 7-9; 352nd Meeting, pars. 62-63.

74 309th Meeting, pars. 13 and 20; letter to the editors, Times (London), June 2, 1956, p. 7, col. 5

75 360th Meeting, par. 53.

76 297th Meeting, par. 59.

77 Ibid.;302nd Meeting, par. 45; 305th Meeting, pars. 22, 53, 62 and 82; 327th Meeting, par. 43; 330th Meeting, par. 36.

78 361st Meeting, par. 3.

79 [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4. For Krylov's comment, see Krylov, op. cit.note 48 above, at 101.

80 [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 116. For Krylov's comment, see Borisov, “Mezhdunarodnyi sud o territorial'nykh vodakh [The International Court on Territorial Waters],“ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 8 (1952), p. 52, at 54.

81 316th Meeting, pars. 79, 80, 81 and 82; 317th Meeting, pars. 9 and 10; 365th Meeting, pars. 20, 22 and 35.

82 The acceptance of wider entrances would help the Sovietization of the four Arctic seas of the Soviet Union. See Kulski, “Soviet Comments on International Law and International Relations,” 47 A.J.I.L. 308, 313-314 (1953).

83 311th Meeting, par. 40; 312th Meeting, par. 67.

84 366th Meeting, pars. 101 and 102.

85 U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, 5 Official Records, Third Committee (High Seas—Fishing—Conservation of Living Resources) 77, 85 (A/CONF.13/41) (1958).

86 1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4.

87 Ibid.244.

88 md.4, 73 (dissenting opinion of Krylov); ibid. 244, 251 (Krylov's declaration of dissent).

89 [1951]ibid.89.

90 [1952]ibid.93.

91 368 above.

92 Krylov, op. Bit. note 48 above, at 33-34.

93 Borisov, “Narushenie Mezhdunarodnym sudom suverennykh prav Irana [Violation of the Sovereign Rights of Iran by the International Court],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 1 (1952), p. 69, at 73.

94 Krylov,op. cit.note 48 above, at 33.

95 Borisov,loo. cit.note 93 above, at 72.

96 U.N. General Assembly, 2nd Sess., Official Records, Resolutions 103-104 (A/519) (1948).

97 lbid.,6th Committee 320 (A/C.6/W.5/Add.l) (1947).

98 Ibid.,Plenary Meetings 877-886 (remarks of Andrei Vishinsky) (A/P.V. 113) (1947).

99 See, e.g.,Simis, loc. cit.note 69 above, at 113.

100 [1948] I.C.J. Rep. 57.

101 Ibid,at 61.

102 Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter)—Pleadings, Oral Arguments, and Documents 29 (I.C.J., 1948).

103 [1948] I.C.J. Rep. 57, 82 (joint dissenting opinion of Basdevant, Winiarski, McNair and Read); ibid, at 94 (dissenting opinion of Zoriêié)

104 Ibid,at 107-108 (dissenting opinion of Krylov).

105 Ibid,at 108-109 (dissenting opinion of Krylov).

106 Borisov, “Priem novykh chlenov v Organizatsiiu Ob “edinennykh Natsii [Admission of New Members to the United Nations Organization],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 9 (1948), p. 6.

107 [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 4.

108 Competence of the Assembly—Pleadings, Oral Arguments, and Documents 100- 105 (I.C.J., 1950).

109 Borisov, “ Neudavshaiasia ataka protiv printsipa edinoglasiia velikikh derzhav v Sovete bezopasnosti [An Unsuccessful Attack on the Principle of Unanimity of the Great Powers in the Security Council],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 6 (1950), p. 51, at 57-58. For another indication of Krylov's strong support of the veto power, see Borisov, book review, Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 1 (1954), p. 152.

110 [1948] I.C.J. Rep. 57.

111 [1950] ibid.4, 6.

112 Krylov, op. cit.note 48 above.

113 Compare: “ In the case where there is divergence in legal views between the organs [of the United Nations] concerning the interpretation of the Charter, it is permissible to consult any competent institution, including the International Court of Justice, which may give an advisory opinion but not an [authoritative] interpretation. A contrary practice would place the Court above the Organization itself, in violation of the Charter.'' Kozhevnikov, “Nekotorye voprosy teorii i praktiki mezhdunarodnogo dogovora [Some Problems in the Theory and Practice of Treaties],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 2 (1954), p. 62, at 74.

114 Krylov, op. cit.note 48 above, at 52.

115 Lissitzyn, book review, 53 A.J.I.L. 201, 202 (1959).

116 [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 12 (dissenting opinion of Alvarez); Hid. at 22 (dissenting opinion of Azevedo).

117 For a striking assertion of this doctrine, see Korovin, ‘ ‘ Proletarskii internatsionalizm v mezhdunarodnoi praktike [Proletarian Internationalism in International Practice],“ Mezhdunarodnaia Zhizn', No. 2 (1958), p. 29, esp. at 37.

118 [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 128.

119 Ibid,at 191 (dissenting opinion of Krylov).

120 [1957] I.C.J. Rep. 9.

121 Krylov, op. cit. note 48 above, at 40.

122 p .369 above.

123 [1948] I.C.J. Rep. 15.

124 [1952] ibid.93.

125 Krylov, op. cit.note 48 above, at 36; Borisov, “Dva sudebnykh dela v Mezhdunarodnom sude OON v 1952 g. [Two Cases before the International Court of the TJ.N. in 1952],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 4 (1953), p. 153.

126 p.365 above.

127 Krylov, op. eit.note 48 above, at 5.

128 P.C.I.J., Publications, Series B, No. 5 (1923).

129 [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 65.

129 aIbid,at 106-111 (dissenting opinion of Krylov).

130 Interpretation of Peace Treaties—Pleadings, Oral Arguments, and Documents 198- 201 (I.C.J., 1950).

131 [1948] I.C.J. Rep. 57.

132 lbid.at 108 (dissenting opinion of Krylov).

133 See, generally, Kozhevnikov, ‘ ‘ Nekotorye voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava v svete truda I.V. Stalina ‘Marksizm i voprosy iazykozaniia’ [Some Problems of International Law in the Light of I. V. Stalin's Work ‘Marxism and Problems of Linguistics’],“ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 6 (1951), p. 25; Levin, Osnovnye problemy sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava [The Basic Problems of Contemporary International Law] (Moscow, 1958); Korovin, loc. cit. note 117 above; Tunkin, “Novyi tip mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii i mezhdunarodnoe pravo [A New Type of International Eelations and International Law],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 1 (1959), p. 81; idem, “Co-existence and International Law,” 95 Hague Academy Becueil des Cours 1 (1958, III) ; Lapenna, ‘ ‘ International Law Viewed through Soviet Eyes,'’ 15 Year Book of World Affairs 204 (1961).

134 Krylov, ‘ ‘ The U.S.S.R. 's Struggle for the Fundamental Principles of International Law” [title of the summary in English], Paristwo i Prawo, No. 11 (1950), p. 43 (the English summary appears on pp. 3-4 of a special supplement).

135 Krylov, “Predislovie [Preface],” 1(1) Oppenheim, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law] 13 (Bussian trans., Moscow, 1948).

136 Asylum Case, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266; Interpretation of the Judgment in the Asylum Case, ibid. 395; Haya de la Torre Case, ibid. 71.

137 Krylov, op. cit.note 48 above, at 135. Krylov also hailed the Court for its reaffirmation of state sovereignty in the opinion concerning Beservations to the Convention on Genocide, [1951] I.C.J. Eep. 15. Borisov, “Suverennoe pravo gosudarstv-uchastnikov mnogostoronnykh dogovorov zaiavliat’ ogovorki [The Sovereign Eight of States, Parties to Multilateral Treaties, to Append Beservations],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 4 (1952), p. 64.

138 Quoted by Triska and Slusser, , ‘ ‘ Treaties and Other Sources of Order in International Eelations: The Soviet View,” 52 A.J.I.L. 699, 711 (1958)Google Scholar

139 [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 174.

140 Ibid,at 219 (dissenting opinion of Krylov).

141 Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law] 9 (Moscow, 1957). Not even evidence. Tunkin, “Co-existence … , “ loc. cit. note 133 above, at 28-30.

142 P. 371 above. Compare Krylov's statement before the International Law Association, in which he criticized the distinction between so-called classical international law and international law of the United Nations. “We have no classical international law now, we have the law of the 81 States belonging to the United Nations.” He said he was surprised to hear the Caroline case cited in support of the self-help doctrine, in the teeth of Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter. Furthermore, the Corfu Channel Case (Merits) was a precedent against the self-help doctrine. International Law Association, Report of the Forty-Eighth Conference, New York, September, 1958, pp. 512-513.

143 Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law] 243 (Moscow, 1957).

144 [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 176.

145 Krylov, op. cit.note 48 above, at 106.

146 Pp. 361-363 above.

147 Korovin, “Novye uchebniki mezhdunarodnogo prava [New Textbooks on International Law],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 8 (1948), p. 72.

148 ibid,at 74.

149 Ibid.at 75.

150 lbid.

151 Ibid.at 76.

152 Durdenevsky and Krylov, letter to the editors, Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo No. 11 (1948), p. 87.

153 Ibid.

154 Art.2, Statute of the I.C.J

155 Art.5, Rules of the I.O.J.

156 Art.2, par. 1, Statute of the International Law Commission.

157 A Soviet treatise on international law, published during Krylov's term on the International Law Commission, characterized the work of the Commission in these words: “Taking into consideration the fact that American imperialists and their lickspittles have set out to employ international law for their criminal purposes, the Commission's work reflects a struggle between representatives of the camp of peace and democracy, headed by the Soviet Union, and representatives of the camp of war and lawlessness, headed by the United States of America. “The imperialist states aim to use codification of international law by the U.N. for their reactionary purposes and to propagate their schemes under the guise of codifying rules of international law.” Lisovsky, op. oit. note 41 above, at 33.

158 Lissitzyn, The International Court of Justice 58 (1951).

159 See,e.g.Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 279-289 (London, 1953)

160 Simis,loc. cit.note 69 above, at 114.

161 Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law] 488 (Moscow, 1951).

162 P.366 above.

163 [1950] I.O.J. Rep. 128.

164 Krylov, op. cit.note 48 above, at 75

165 Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community 230-232 (London, 1933).

166 Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920-1942, p. 355 (1943).

167 Krylov, op. cit. note 48 above, at 164.

168 [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 93.

169 [1949] ibid.4.

170 [1953] ibid.47.

171 MacLaurin, The United Nations and Power Politics 402-405 (London, 1951).

172 Rosenne classifies Krylov and Winiarski as representatives of “Communist law“ and ZoriSi6 as speaking for “Roman law (Balkans).” Rosenne, The International Court of Justice 139 (Leyden, 1957).

173 See Kozhevnikov's curt declarations in the following cases: Southwest Africa— Voting Procedure, [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 67, 78-79; Admissibility of Hearing of Petitions by the Committee on Southwest Africa, [1956] ibid. 23, 33-34; Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O., ibid. 77, 102-103; Interhandel Case (Interim Protection), [1957] ibid. 105, 114; Case Concerning the Eight of Passage over Indian Territory (Preliminary Objection), ibid. 125, 153; Case Concerning the Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants, [1958] ibid. 55, 72; Iuterhandel Case (Preliminary Objection), [1959] ibid. 6, 31-32; Case Concerning Eight of Passage over Indian Territory (Merits), [1960] ibid. 6, 52.

174 Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice 69 (London, 1958).

175 Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the All- Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), June 27, 1930 [by Stalin], Shestnadtsatyi s“ezd Vsesoiuznoi Kommunisticheskoi Partii (B.): Stenograficheskii otchet [The Sixteenth Congress of the All-TJnion Communist Party (B.) : Verbatim Record] 56 (Moscow, 1930),

176 [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 151.

177 Hudson, , “The Twenty-Eighth Year of the World Court,” 44 A.J.I.L. 1, 20–23 (1950).Google Scholar

178 Lissitzyn, op. cit.note 158 above, at 55.

179 Reported in The New York Times, Aug. 20, 1950, p. 7, col. 1.

180 U.N. Security Council, 5th Year, Official Records, 489th Meeting 18, 20-21 (S/P.V. 489) (1950) (remarks of Sir Gladwyn Jebb). 181.E.g., Borisov, “ O mezhdunarodnom delikte: Narushenie Angliei i SShA ital'skogo mirnogo dogovora [On International Delict: Violation of the Italian Peace Treaty by England and the U.S.A.],” Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, No. 1 (1948), p. 39.

182 Pp. 367, 372, 380 and 383 above.

183 See the impression conveyed by Gildersleeve, Many a Good Crusade 347 (1954).

184 See the tribute paid to Krylov's “great ability and his personal qualities,” TJ.N. General Assembly, 13th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee 221 (A/C.6/SR.593) (1958).

185 Now published as Triska and Slusser, The Theory, Law and Policy of Soviet Treaties (1962).

186 Quoted in “Shifting the Blame,” 51 A.J.I.L. 771 (1957).

187 P 364 above.

188 Art. 2(b), Statutes (Rules) of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Approved at the Eighteenth Party Congress (1939).

189 Preamble.

190 Ibid

191 Art.16, par. 1, Statute of the I.C.J.

192 Art.126, Constitution of the U.S.S.R.

193 Art.112, Constitution of the U.S.S.R.

194 Lauterpacht, op. cit.note 165 above, at 232-233.