Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:29:08.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Yalta to Helsinki: developments in international law*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

F.A.M. Alting von Geusau
Get access

Extract

A Yugoslav commentator on the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) – concluded on 1 August 1975 in Helsinki – recently wrote: “By indicating the ways of real and all-round active and peaceful coexistence in Europe, the Helsinki Document automatically rules out any ‘co-existence’ between the ‘spirit’ of Helsinki and the ‘spirit’ of Yalta”.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 8 , December 1977 , pp. 35 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1977

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. Nincić, , “The Spirit and letter of Helsinki”, Review of International Affairs, No. 626, Vol. XXVII (5 05 1976), p. 7.Google Scholar

2. Final Act, fifth introductory para, to the “Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States”. Emphasis added. Quotations from the Final Act in this article are taken from the official English text as reproduced in publication No. 115 of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Conferentie Over Veiligheid en Samenwerking in Europa. Helsinki Genève - Helsinki 1973–1975 (The Hague, 1976)Google Scholar. In Chapter VII of this document: “Analyse van de Slotakte” [Analysis of the Final Act], several interpretations of the Act by participating States are summarized. Interpretations taken from this summary are referred to as: “Analysis”, op. cit.

3. Russell, , “The Helsinki Declaration: Brobdingnag or Lilliput?” 70 AJIL (1976), p. 248 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3a. “The Spirit and letter of Helsinki”, Review of International Affairs, No. 626, Vol. XXVII (5 May 1976), p. 7.Google Scholar

4. Goodrich, , Hambro, , Simons, , Charter of the United Nations. 3rd. ed. (New York, 1969),p. 212.Google Scholar

5. Russell, and Muther, , A History of the United Nations Charter, (Washington, D.C., 1958),p. 961.Google Scholar

6. Russell and Muther, op.cit., pp. 423–4.

7. Text in this para, from Grenvill, , The Major International Treaties 1914–1973 (London, 1974).Google Scholar

8. For a text of the relevant paras., see Annex 1.

9. Röling, , International Law in an Expanded World (Amsterdam 1960)., p. 45 et seq.Google Scholar

10. The author has limited himself in this para, to a discussion of Soviet doctrine in the immediate post-war era and at the time of Helsinki.

11. As translated in: Lapenna, , “International Law Viewed through Soviet Eyes”, 15 YBWA (1961), p. 211.Google Scholar

12. Kis, , Les Pays de l'Europe de l'Est (Louvain, 1964), pp. 209–10.Google Scholar

13. “Les Notions principles du droit de gens”, Hague Recueil (1947-I)Google Scholar. The term “universal international law” (the existence of which is denied by Krylov) refers to international law applicable to relations between all States. “International law”, (of which Krylov lists six elementary notions) refers to the law applicable to relations between States with opposing social systems. In order to avoid confusion between our generally accepted definitions of these terms and specific Soviet definitions, inverted commas are used whenever the Soviet definition is applicable.

14. Liubomudrova quoted in: Butler, , “Eastern European Approaches to Public International Law” in YBWA 1972, p. 332, n. 3.Google Scholar

15. Text in 66 AJIL (1972). See also comments by Schwebel on pp. 818–19.

16. “Analysis”, op. cit.

17. “Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between participating States in the CSCE”, in CSCE a Polish View (Polish Institute of International Affairs. Warsaw, 1976), pp. 67, 69 et seq.Google Scholar

18. Theory of International Law (translated by Butler, William E.) (Harvard, 1974), pp. 444–46.Google Scholar

19. E.g., Principle VI: “regardless of their mutual relations”. See, “Analysis”, op. cit.

20. Op. cit., p. 199.

21. Major Legal Systems in the World Today (with Brierly) (London, 1968), pp. 131–2.Google Scholar

22. 10 UNTS, p. 198. See Grzybowski, , Soviet Public International Law (Leyden, 1970), p. 142Google Scholar. Halle, , The Cold War As History (London, 1967), p. 55 et seqGoogle Scholar; Gaddis, , The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947 (N.Y., London 1972), p. 133 et seq.Google Scholar

23. Article 1 of the Zgorzelec agreement between Poland and the GDR regarding the Delimitation of the Polish-German Frontier of 6 July 1950. Quotations from Leśniewski, ed., Western Frontier of Poland, Documents. Statements. Opinions. (Warsaw, 1965).Google Scholar

23a. See Grenvill, op.cit., Kraus, ed., Deutschlands Ostproblem. Eine Untersuchung der Beziehungen des deutschen Volkes zu seinen östlichten Nachbarn (Würzburg, 1957)Google Scholar. Leśiewski, ed., Western Frontier of Poland, Documents. Statements Opinions (Warsaw, 1965)Google Scholar. Lachs, , The Polish-German frontier (Warsaw, 1964).Google Scholar

24. “Analysis”, op. cit.

25. Symonides, loc.cit., pp. 74, 83, 86.

26. Grzybowski, , Soviet Public International Law (Leyden, 1970), p. 142.Google Scholar

27. Quotations from the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria. 41 UNTS, p. 56 et seq. Arts. 9 (first sentence), 13, 14, 16–18. Art. 9 (and similar arts, in the other peace treaties) also gives the maximum allowed strength of land, naval and air forces. The texts are identical or similar in the other peace treaties referred to.

28. GA. Resolution 1 (I) of 24 January 1946 on the establishment of a commission to deal with the problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy; GA. Resolution 41 (I) of 14 December 1946 on the principles governing the general regulation and reduction of armaments. See The United Nations and Disarmament 1945–1965. (New York) 67. I. 8.Google Scholar

29. Corresponding to the withdrawal by members of forces stationed outside their own territory. See further below.

30. 217 UNTS, p. 223.

31. Compare, e.g., the size of the armed forces of the former Axis Powers as limited by the peace treaties with present day figures as given in the Military Balance 1976–1977 of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

32. Western European Union. Brussels Treaty as amended by the Protocol modifying and completing the Brussels Treaty, signed at Paris on 23 October 1954. Annexes I-III to Protocol No. III on the Control of Armaments. The undertaking extends to atomic, chemical and biological weapons, long range missiles, guided missiles and influence mines; warships, with the exception of smaller ships for defence purposes and bomber aircraft for strategic purposes as defined in the annexes II-III.

33. For a review of disarmament negotiations from 1945–1961, see e.g., The United Nations and Disarmament (UN Publication, 1971)Google Scholar and Dr. Bela, Vitanyi, Die Entwicklung des Problems der internationalen Abruestung (unpublished report).Google Scholar

34. Text from, Ontwapening, Veiligheid, Vrede (Report by the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs to Parliament) (The Hague, 1964)Google Scholar. The relevant paras, of the Declaration can be found in Annex 2.

35. Excerpts from the Treaty may be found in Annex 3. Texts of Arms Control Agreements from Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements, issued by US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. (Washington D.C., February 1975).Google Scholar

36. For excerpts from the Biological Weapons Convention, see Annex 4.

37. Excerpts from the relevant provisions of the ABM treaty are in Annex 5. Identical texts figure in the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms.

38. Nuclear Test Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France) Judgments of 20 December 1974. ICJ Reports, 1974, pp. 253–528. Basing itself upon unilateral French statements to the effect that the series of atmospheric tests had been completed in 1974, the Court found that the claims no longer had any object.

39. It includes a para, on prior notification of major military manoeuvres and other military manoeuvres, on exchange of observers, on prior notification of major military movements and on other confidence building measures.

40. See the author's European Perspectives on World Order (Leyden, 1975) p. 283–5.Google Scholar

41. See, e.g., the publication referred to in n. 17 above, the author's article “Detente After Helsinki” in YBWA (1978) and IISS, The Military Balance 1976–1977 (London 1976); IISS, Strategic Survey. (London, 1977)

42. The Founding Declaration of Cominform.

43. See the series of Yearbooks of the European Convention on Human Rights, published since 1959.

44. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law. I. Peace. 8th ed. (London, 1962), p. 740Google Scholar. UN Charter, Arts. 1 (3), 13, 55, 56,62 (2), 68.

45. See ICJ. Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania, 1950.

46. ICJ Reports, 1950, pp. 10–11.

47. Loc.cit., p. 111.

48. Loc.cit., p. 268.

49. “Analysis”, op. cit.

50. Symonides, loc. cit., p. 100.

51. Loc.cit., p. 101.

52. One World of Truth …(London, 1970).Google Scholar

53. The so-called Curzon line was the Eastern Border of Poland as recognized on 8 December 1919 by the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers. The name of Lord Curzon became attached to it in 1920.