Questions Relating to the Competence of the Security Council
It has been said that international law is “more than any other law, a regulation of competencies.” 1 As such the question of competence has been a prominent one in any international organization. For example, more than one hundred questions were raised as to the competence of particular organs of the League of Nations during its life time,2 and it is not surprising that the United Nations has had to consider the same question on many occasions, especially in its early stage of existence, as it appears that it “is natural for institutions in their infancy to be faced with disputes in regard to their jurisdiction.”3 Indeed, the question of competence has been and is not only a major legal question,4 but also the most important question in the operations of the United Nations, in that all its actions emanate from either explicit or implicit recognition of its own competence. As early as 1950, a special committee of the American Society of International Law pointed out that “in many cases the Members concerned almost automatically challenged the competence of the United Nations in order to delay action or to channel the discussion away from the merits of the case. There are in consequence several hundreds of cases in which the competence of the Organization has been challenged.” 5 The prominence of questions relating to competence of the various organs of the United Nations and related agencies is also reflected in the advisory opinions given by the International Court of Justice. All but one 1 of the questions submitted to the Court for advisory opinion have touched upon the question of competence in one way or another.2
The United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction
Referring to “domestic jurisdiction” as used in the League Covenant, Professor J. L. Brierly characterized it as “a new catchword,” capable of proving as great a hindrance to the orderly development of international law as “sovereignty” and “state equality” had been in the past, and about which “little seems to be known except its extreme sanctity.” Since these words were written, the Covenant of the League of Nations has been replaced by the Charter of the United Nations as the basic law of the organization of the world community. The concept of a reserved domestic jurisdiction is still with us. In fact, Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter gives it a broader definition and a wider range of application than did Article 15, paragraph 8, of the Covenant. What is the meaning of the domestic jurisdiction principle as set forth in the Charter? What effect has it had in practice on the working and development of the United Nations?
Athenian Democracy at War
Classical Athens perfected direct democracy. The plays of this ancient Greek state are still staged today. These achievements are rightly revered. Less well known is the other side of this success story. Democratic Athens completely transformed warfare and became a superpower. The Athenian armed forces were unmatched in size and professionalism. This book explores the major reasons behind this military success. It shows how democracy helped the Athenians to be better soldiers. For the first time David M. Pritchard studies, together, all four branches of the armed forces. He focuses on the background of those who fought Athens' wars and on what they thought about doing so. His book reveals the common practices that Athens used right across the armed forces and shows how Athens' pro-war culture had a big impact on civilian life. The book puts the study of Athenian democracy at war on an entirely new footing.