Oscar Schachter

Self-Defense and the Rule of Law

Self-defense on the international level is generally regarded, at least by international lawyers, as a legal right defined and legitimated by international law. Governments, by and large, appear to agree. When they have used force, they have nearly always claimed self-defense as their legal justification. Governments disputing that claim have usually asserted that the legal conditions of self-defense were not met in the particular case. However, despite the apparent agreement that self-defense is governed by law, the meaning and validity of that proposition remain open to question. There are some who challenge the basic idea that the security of a state-its self-preservation-can and should be subjected to international law. Others question whether under present conditions the ideal of a rule of law can be applied on the international level to national security decisions. My aim in this essay is to explore some aspects of the problem raised by these challenges to the applicability of international law to claims of self-defense. It is not my intention, I should add, to consider specific interpretations of selfdefense.

Marine pollution problems and remedies

Marine pollution is a global problem in several senses. It affects the health of the oceans in all parts of the world; it affects all countries, both developed and developing; and all countries contribute to some aspects of the problem. Some marine pollution problems are local, but many have international implications. Particularly if the effects of pollution on the living resources of the sea are considered, very few marine pollution problems can be considered matters of exclusively local interest.

The Future of the United Nations

that part of our tradition, but he has retained the meat in a speech tailored to fit our times. I give you the President of the Society, Dr. Oscar Schachter. President Schachter. I much appreciate the Chairmans kind remarks. There are times when living in New York and working in the United Na tions seem like double jeopardy but tonight they are a happy coincidence for the occasion. When the Executive Council voted to meet in New York, for the first time in more than 60 years, several of us (especially the Society manage ment) were understandably concerned over the risks and uncertainties of that change of venue. My first contribution was to introduce still another hazard?this one as Chairman. Professor Hazard lived up to my expecta tions, not his name. With remarkable dispatch he persuaded ten very eminent Society members to take on the task of organizing panels, efficiently giving each his marching orders. They in turn got a group of first-rate people to serve as panelists, all of whom merit our congratulations for the exceptionally good program of this year. It is one of the principal grati fications of being President of this Society to discover how many extremely busy and important people are ready to give their time and energy to its tasks. I would add to that the great pleasure of working with an extra ordinarily able and dedicated Executive Director, Steve Schwebel, and a staff as hard-working and competent as any I have seen. I should like to include a special word in praise of Richard Edwards, the Assistant Ex ecutive Director, who is leaving the staff after several years of pioneering service in the newer fields of the Societys activities. Rich has not only been competent and hard-working; he has contributed ideas, criticism and proposals of great value. His departure is a loss to the Society and we wish him all the best in his new undertakings. This reminds me that in the good old days the President had to do without a staff. Our first Presi dent, Elihu Root, not only arranged the annual program, but he presided over all its meetings; the records show he even chose the menu for the banquet. But then he had good preparation, having previously served both as Secretary of State and Secretary of War before reaching the height of President of this Society. The distinguished speaker who will follow me might find this precedent interesting?I can assure him that the Society imposes no bar to its high office on account of previous condition of servitude.