On February 28, 2013, the appeals chamber (Chamber) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) overturned the 2011 conviction of General Momčilo Perišsicć, the former head of the Yugoslav Army (VJ), for aiding and abetting war crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. By a 4-1 vote, the Chamber held that “specific direction” is an essential element of liability for the actus reus of aiding and abetting the crimes of murder, extermination, inhumane acts, attacks on civilians, and persecution as crimes against humanity and/or violations of the laws or customs of war. It also held that Perišsicć lacked the necessary “effective control” over his subordinates to subject him to command responsibility for their violations of the laws and customs of war.

During the past decade, a number of scholarly analyses of the United Nations ministate problem have appeared. This concern is understandable because the dilemma of ministate representation goes to the heart of the malaise increasingly gripping the world organization: How to square formal voting power with the realities of international politics? Indeed, no less of an authority than the late Secretary-General U Thant, in his final Annual Report, warned his reluctant audience that the ministate problem “is likely to become more acute in the years to come.”

Scholarship in the discipline of international law may take different forms. It may deal systematically with general practice in a comprehensive way, resulting in a textbook or treatise that is a culmination of long years of teaching, research, and learning. It may examine specific topics of international law in an empirical, historical, and analytical exercise of intellect and reach considerable depth in understanding the topics, culminating in a monograph. Or it may focus on issues of narrow scope in an article, which, of limited size, is suitable for publication in a journal and yearbook. This review focuses on the public international law scholarship in all three forms published by Chinese scholars in the past few years, although the nature of a review necessarily limits the number of publications selected for review. The plan is to take stock of the mainstream thoughts and methods through reviewing the selected publications. The term “international law,” meaning public international law, is used throughout this review for sake of convenience.

The movement for the creation of a definite and permanent organ for the authoritative declaration of international law in controversies between states involves in it a transition from the concept of moral to that of legal obligation. The cardinal element in the concept of legality, that which distinguishes moral duty from legal obligation, is that in the latter case the duty is not enforced only through a general sentiment of right, but through a definite organization. An obligation may be said to be legal when in its determination and enforcement, definitely constituted organs are active. The obligation of a moral, ethical, or social duty, which is backed only by the general sentiment of the community, may be felt just as strongly by individuals as the legal obligation which is determined by a definitely appointed body of men. Yet this very definiteness of organization serves to impart greater strength, or at least rigidity, to the legal principles.

Non-recognition by the United States Government of the absorption of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1940 has confronted our courts with a series of questions reminiscent of the period of our non-recognition of the Soviet Government.