Search

How do we 'right-size' government? Even today, when discussing the proper size of government, we tend to use the vague terms 'left' and 'right,' terms inherited from the French Revolution [...]

The article presents a speech by Professor John Norton Moore, delivered at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in March 2020. Topics include the works of international lawyers Wally Solf and Marc Warren, the principle of jus ad bellum or the prohibition against aggression, and the erosion of the right of defense within the international law community.

The norms controlling initiation of military force, or jus ad bellum as traditionally designated in international law, are among the most important normative principles in the international system. As properly understood, they stand firmly against aggression and facilitate the minimum order, which serves as the stable basis for exchange, agreement, and human creativity. As such, one would expect that the International Court of Justice, itself created as a barrier against war, would serve as a powerful force against aggression in expounding these norms. Sadly, however, the decisions of the International Court in this area have too frequently adopted an approach that encourages, rather than discourages, aggression. This is particularly so in the most important contemporary threat spectrum, that of "secret warfare," covert attack and terrorism. This Article will briefly explore the requirements of a normative system effective in discouraging aggression, review the spectrum of forms of aggression and the contemporary importance of "secret warfare," assess the normative structure of jus ad bellum under the United Nations Charter, and then analyze the principal use of force decisions of the International Court of Justice. The Article concludes not only that the Court has distorted the Charter framework in ways that encourage aggression, but also that in its legal analysis getting there, the Court has departed from the high quality of legal craftsmanship one expects of the Court. Finally, the Article urges that, given the central importance of the normative principles of jus ad bellum, foreign offices need to engage more openly and vocally in supporting the core Charter principles against aggression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author recounts the benefits for which he fought when he led the negotiations of the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He recalls the debate whether the U.S. was going to insist on all of its navigational rights, transit passage through, over and under straits used for international navigation, or whether it would accept the advice that UNCLOS should be damped. He is also proud that the U.S. prevailed on all of the security provisions of the UNCLOS.