CORRESPONDENCE
| Author | Jagat Narain |
| Published date | 01 January 1977 |
| Date | 01 January 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1977.tb01491.x |
Jan.
19771
REVIEWS
119
of its work reflects the hesitancies of the new states in
so
far as the inter-
national law of the older sovereignties are concerned. It must not be thought,
however, that were these new states not in existence or were their views
disregarded, the situation would be any simpler. Those aware
of
the history
of the League of Nations in this field and the failure of its 1930 Codification
Conference will recall the difficulties that existed then when dealing with issues
which are still under discussion.
Dr.
Rosenne has for some years now been concerned with reprinting and
commenting upon the documents produced by international codification
conferences and he has now turned his attention to that held at The Hague
in 1930.
This
Conference dealt with nationality, territorial waters and respon-
sibility of states for damage done in their territory to the person
or
property
of aliens. The record of the Geneva Conferences
on
the Law of the Sea as
well as that of Caracas, with its continuing saga at Geneva and New York,
reiterates that the problems
of
the territorial sea have been with
us
for
a
long time and are probably no nearer settlement today than they were 50 years
ago. As regards nationality, recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel
concerning the Law of Return and the definition of
a
Jew, as well as problems
relating to British immigration law, patrials and Commonwealth status, remind
us
how difficult and topical
are
issues concerning nationality. In
so
far as
state responsibility
is
concerned, drafts in this field have been prepared for the
International Law Commission (1971-72); the Inter-American Judicial Com-
mittee (1961-65); the Asian-African Consultative Legal Committee (1961); and
the American Law Institute (Restatement, 1965), Moreover, the recent events
at Entebbe in connection with the hijacking of an Air France aircraft and the
role of Uganda’s president and troops indicate how important it is
to
clarify
the law on this subject as soon as possible.
Any person
or
institution concerned with the development of the law on
these issues, or in ascertaining some of the more lasting reasons for non-
agreement, will be thankful to
Dr.
Rosenne and his publishers for having
provided in such easily usable form the records of the 1930 Conference.
L.
C. GREEN.
CORRESPONDENCE
THE
EDITOR,
Dear Sir,
Professor Sawer in his review
(M.L.R.
September 1976) of my book
(Public
Law
in
Northern
Ireland)
rightly criticises me for being intolerant towards
Bentham, Austin, Kelsen, Hart and other
“
legal positivists.”
I
deeply regret it
and recognise that they deserve much more understanding and respect than
I
gave them.
I
regret, equally, the
“
irritating and infuriating
”
features of the book which
were due to its anti-Western, anti-British and anti-loyalist bias.
I
feel
sorry
that
I
was unable to give prominence to the British liberal tradition, dating
from Locke, for which
I
have always had sub-conscious admiration.
In
any
case,
I
have now been able through a long period of re-appraisal to under-
stand and appreciate genuinely the values and modes of thought of the people
in Britain and Northern Ireland. Of this there is no doubt. For similar reasons,
my over-concern with the rights of the individual had led me to overlook the
difficulties of the armed forces in dealing with physical violence.
I
wish
I
had
taken into account adequately the viewpoint
of
the latter in stating the legal
position.
Professor Sawer attributes to me
“
a
belief that I.R.A. terrorism is less
serious than commonly thought or that it is justified.”
I
wish to deny any such
THE
MODERN
LAW REVIEW.
To continue reading
Request your trial