University of Virginia Library

Rusk Says International Law
Should Limit Use Of Force

"It might be possible to
make three comments on the
future development of
international law with respect
to the use of force," says
former Secretary of State Dean
Rusk in the current issue of the
"Virginia Journal of
International Law."

The law regarding individual
and collective self-defense
should be strengthened and not
diluted, and international law
should proceed to proscribe as
narrowly as possible the
initiation of the use of force
across international
boundaries, Mr. Rusk says.

"Third," he says, "this
reviewer would look upon the
concept of 'preventive
self-defense' with the greatest
skepticism." Mr. Rusk
elaborates on his suggestions
with specific examples drawn
from his diplomatic career;

Maintains Order

Mr. Rusk's comments appear
as a review of "Law and the
Indo-China War," a book by Law
Professor John Norton Moore.
Mr. Rusk interprets Mr.
Moore's recommendations for
maintaining a minimum level
of world order, in his words,
"against the background of too
many years' involvement as a
decision maker."

"This is the first time since
leaving the administration that
Mr. Rusk has written on the
specific issues raised by
Professor Moore—the 12
elements of the
MacDougal–Laswellian
philosophy," says Peter B.
Fitzpatrick, executive editor of
the University's law-student
publication.

Strengthening Procedures

Speaking to the fifth point,
strengthened collective
procedures for responding to
claims of unauthorized
coercion, Mr. Rusk says, "it is
regrettable that the United
Nations membership has
substantially abdicated
responsibility with respect to
the situation in Southeast
Asia."

He warns that governments
answering acts of aggression
with restraint should not be
forced by changes in
international law to waive
future retaliatory actions.

Disastrous To Peace

"Further," he says, "it
would be disastrous for the
prospects of peace to concede
as a matter of international law
that those launching an attack
against a neighbor can rely
upon a protected 'sanctuary' as
the base for such attacks."

He concludes on this point,
that "the occasional utility of
the instrument is not worth the
irritations and vexations of the
present disorderly practice of
states."

Opposing View

Giving an interpretation
opposing Mr. Rusk's review of
Mr. Moore's book is Richard A.
Falk, law professor at
Princeton University and critic
of U.S. Asian policy. Mr. Falk
recently returned from Hanoi.