International law and its discontents: The U. S. Raid on Libya

Anglo-Soviet symposium on public international law, University College, London, 28–30 April 1986.

New York Times, October 26th 1984.

New York Times, November 29th, 1984.

Ibid., at 661.

At 659.

Exchange of Correspondence with Dr. Michael Akehurst, in 80American Journal of International Law (1986), 147.

Broadcast address to the people of the United States, transcript inThe Times, April 16th, 1986.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

The Guardian, April 16th, 1986.

The opening words of the Preamble to the Charter may be called in evidence: “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind ...”

The Law of the United Nations, London, Stevens and Sons, 1950, 914.

The Bowett view is not a novelty to a common lawyer: in a system where statute and common law co-exist, the precise ambit of a statutory reform vis-à-vis the existing law may be quite unclear and exercise the judges for a considerable time. The resolution of such issues depends on whether the courts are prepared to grant an extensive interpretation to the statute or a confining one. The scope of the reform achieved by Section 3(1) of the Homicide Act 1957 (provocation defence in relation to a charge of murder) is a case in point: the relationship of this section to the common law on provocation was at times quite unclear. See J.C. Smith and B. Hogan,Criminal Law, Butterworths, 5th edn., London, 1983, 299.

Announcing the establishment of rapid deploymennt forces in 1978, President Carter of the U.S.A. described a supply of oil as one of the bases of national security — “The economic health and well-being of the United States, Western Europe and Japan depend upon continued access to oil from the Persian Gulf.” The forces were set up “to defend our interests throughout the world”, 20Survival (1978), 176. See also the first point of the Weinberger statement (supra).

Bowett,supra note 18 at 87–105. The point relates to the use of force in relation to nationals abroad which appears to be the major factual ingredient in the United States justification. It is a different matter if the “attack” is against citizens on home territory — such a case is governed by standard self-defence principles.

M. McDougal and M. Reisman, Response [on Humanitarian Intervention] 3International lawyer (1969), 438.

See the statement in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,The Times, April 16th, 1986. The statement makes exclusive reliance on Article 51 for a legal justification of the U.S. action and British support for it.

For a general account see M. Akehurst, “Humanitarian Intervention”, in Bull (ed.),Intervention in World Politics Oxford, O.U.P., 1984, 95.

Retaliation is not self-defence; the U.N. Charter permits self-defence, but makes no mention of retaliation.

See, for example, the reaction of States as expressed in the U.N. Security Council to the 1976 raid on Entebbe (Uganda) by Israeli troops, 15I.L.M. (1976), 1224; Akehurst,supra note 25 at 101–102.

The most outstanding example in modern international relations is the raid by Israel on the Iraqi nuclear reactor complex to forestall a possible development of nuclear weapons. SeeUNDOC S/PV. 2280, June 12th, 1981, 16–37.

ConsultIsrael in Lebanon, The Report of an International Commission, etc., London, Ithaca Press, 1983.

Passim.

The reaction of the United Kingdom to the Argentine Invasion of the Falkland Islands was in principle a legitimate exercise of self-defence whatever doubts one may have on the modalities of the exercise. In a comprehensive literature see L.C. Green, “The Falklands, the Law and the War”,Year Book of World Affairs, 1984, 89.

L. Oppenheim,International Law, London, Longman, 8th edn., 1955, 305.

On the French intervention in the Central African Empire in 1979 to overthrow Emperor Bokassa, see Akehurst,supra note 25 at 98.

The Times, April 16th, 1986.

Ibid.

Ibid.

The Guardian, April 16th, 1986.

European Parliament News, April 1986, 1.

The Caroline Case, 29British and Foreign State Papers, 1137; 30ibid, 195.

The Times, April 18th, 1986.

Sir Anthony Parsons, “A Classic Case of How Not to Swat a Gadfly”,The Observer, April 20th, 1986.

The Times, April 16th, 1986.

See Parsons,supra note 41. Non-Military action is envisaged by the Tokyo Declaration of the Seven Western Industrial Nations,The Times, May 7th, 1986.

See the Statement of President Reagan of the U.S.A. upon the completion of the Tokyo Summit,The Guardian, May 7th, 1986.

Mr. Enoch Powell, MP, distinguishes between theinevitability of an event (violent Ulster reaction to the Anglo-Irish agreement) and itsjustification. Gadaffi's support of the Palestinian cause through action against the U.S.A. would perhaps fall into the category of “inevitability”.

Book Review of J. Stone,Israel and Palestine: Assault on the law of Nations, 53British Year Book of international Law (1982), 248.

Samuel Beckett,Waiting for Godot, London, Faber and Faber, 1956.