Santa Clara Law Review
Volume 3 | Number 1 / Article 3 / 1-1-1962
Ex Injuria Jus Non Oritur: A Principle Misapplied - by Sherman L. Cohn
INTRODUCTION: THE QUESTION
In the year 1928 of the common era, a treaty was concluded between fifteen sovereign nations by which they solemnly renounced the use of war as an instru- ment of national policy.' Soon thereafter, sixty-five nations,2 consisting of virtu- ally every state then existing, became parties. Nine years before, many of the same nations had undertaken other solemn engagements in the Covenant of the League of Nations. They had announced the "acceptance of obligations not to resort to war" and undertook "to respect and preserve as against external aggres- sion the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League."
In 1933 the nations of the American hemisphere condemned wars of aggression and agreed that the settlement of controversies of any kind should be effected "only by the PACIFIC MEANS which have the sanction of international law." Finally, "peoples . . . determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war created the United Nations "to maintain international peace and security, and TO THAT END: TO TAKE EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE MEASURES for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means ... adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." In partial fulfillment of that purpose, the Security Council was given the powers to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to "make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Read whole article at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2637&context=lawreview
FLATLAND - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland