No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
International law has assumed that states are independent and free to vary their national cultures and institutions at will. It permits them to organize their domestic economy, culture, opinion, and polity in a totalitarian way if they see fit. In fact, however, international law developed among states which had many cultural characteristics in common. It was originally the law governing the relations of the Christian states of Europe, all with a tradition reaching back into medieval Christendom and classical antiquity, and united by practices of maritime trade, and by commercial, religious, and educational institutions. The potential totalitarianism which the law allowed was not in fact realized because of moral and practical inhibitions. Governments wished to observe the universal mores, and even if they had not, they lacked the technical, administrative, and political means which modern despots have utilized so effectively to override these mores in the interests of concentrated power.
1 Burgess, J. W., Political Science and Constitutional Law (Boston, 1890), p. 50.Google Scholar
2 Preuss, Laurence, “National Socialist Conceptions of International Law,” in this Review, Vol. 29, pp. 595 ff.Google Scholar; Herz, John, “The National Socialist Doctrine of International Law,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 54, pp. 536 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gott, Virginia, “National Socialist Theory of International Law,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, pp. 704 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John N. Hazard, “Cleansing Soviet International Law of Anti-Marxist Theories,” ibid., 294 ff.; Taracouzio, T. A., The Soviet Union and International Law (New York, 1935).Google Scholar
3 See Brussels Convention on Immunities of State-owned Ships, 1926; Harvard Research in International Law, “Competence of Courts in Regard to Foreign States,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 36 (Supplement), pp. 560–569.Google Scholar
4 Robbins, Lionel, The Economic Causes of War (London, 1939), pp. 98 ff.Google Scholar
5 Durbin, E. F. M. and Bowlby, John, Personal Aggressiveness and War (New York, 1939), pp. 126 ff.Google Scholar
6 Speier, Hans and Kahler, Alfred (eds.), War in Our Time (New York, 1939).Google Scholar
7 Graham, Malbone W., “The Peace Policy of the Soviet Union,” in Harper, Samuel N. (ed.), The Soviet Union and World Problems (Chicago, 1935), pp. 125 ff.Google Scholar
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.