![RölingB.V.A.051976231100103FerenczBenjamin B., Defining International Aggression. The Search for World Peace. A Documentary History and Analysis. With an Introduction by SohnLouis B.. Vol. I (558 pp.), Vol. II (626 pp.). Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry, New York 1975, $75.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19761976T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X0001682Xa.pdfdispartBook Reviews and Book Notices1.E.g. on the words “at the present stage” in the preamble. These words stem from an earlier Soviet draft, which omitted “indirect aggression” and started “at the present stage” with armed force. The French Government later interpreted these words as a reference to the present age, in which so many “weapons of mass destruction” are available (Vol. II, p. 22).2.Thus, Art. 5 has “are” instead of “is” (Vol. II, p. 45).3.RussellRuth B.: A History of the United Nations Charter, The Role of the United States 1940–1945, The Brookings Institution, 1958, p. 465.4.But it should likewise be pointed out that the Resolution, sub 3, is also addressed to all States and appeals to them “to refrain from all acts of aggression and other uses of force contrary to the Charter and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the U.N.”.5.Military force used in other cases may indeed be legitimate, as is the case with the force that is ordered or recommended by the Security Council, or recommended by the General Assembly. The United Nations may legitimise the use of force in cases other than the action against an “armed attack”, e.g. the Security Council in the case of “a threat to the peace” (the S.C. considered the continuation of the illegal racist regime in S. Rhodesia “a threat to the peace”). The General Assembly has conferred on peoples the right to use force against “apartheid” or colonial exploitation. The “auctoritas” from the classical “betlum justum doctrine” has here been transferred from the]()
RölingB.V.A.051976231100103FerenczBenjamin B., Defining International Aggression. The Search for World Peace. A Documentary History and Analysis. With an Introduction by SohnLouis B.. Vol. I (558 pp.), Vol. II (626 pp.). Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry, New York 1975, $75.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19761976T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X0001682Xa.pdfdispartBook Reviews and Book Notices1.E.g. on the words “at the present stage” in the preamble. These words stem from an earlier Soviet draft, which omitted “indirect aggression” and started “at the present stage” with armed force. The French Government later interpreted these words as a reference to the present age, in which so many “weapons of mass destruction” are available (Vol. II, p. 22).2.Thus, Art. 5 has “are” instead of “is” (Vol. II, p. 45).3.RussellRuth B.: A History of the United Nations Charter, The Role of the United States 1940–1945, The Brookings Institution, 1958, p. 465.4.But it should likewise be pointed out that the Resolution, sub 3, is also addressed to all States and appeals to them “to refrain from all acts of aggression and other uses of force contrary to the Charter and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the U.N.”.5.Military force used in other cases may indeed be legitimate, as is the case with the force that is ordered or recommended by the Security Council, or recommended by the General Assembly. The United Nations may legitimise the use of force in cases other than the action against an “armed attack”, e.g. the Security Council in the case of “a threat to the peace” (the S.C. considered the continuation of the illegal racist regime in S. Rhodesia “a threat to the peace”). The General Assembly has conferred on peoples the right to use force against “apartheid” or colonial exploitation. The “auctoritas” from the classical “betlum justum doctrine” has here been transferred from theRöling, B.V.A. · Netherlands International Law Review · 1976