There is a tendency abroad to assume that, simply by virtue of the fact that it is a 'hyperpower' (as the phrase goes)-and, so the argument continues, the sole hyperpower-the USA can change international law just by saying that it wants change, for example by enunciating a new doctrine and declaring that it will conform its future practice to that doctrine, or by simply acting in ways that conform to its interests or preferences but take little account of the interests of others MPLS. There is a tendency abroad to assume that, simply by virtue of the fact that it is a 'hyperpower' (as the phrase goes)-and, so the argument continues, the sole hyperpower-the USA can change international law just by saying that it wants change, for example by enunciating a new doctrine and declaring that it will conform its future practice to that doctrine, or by simply acting in ways that conform to its interests or preferences but take little account of the interests of others.

women clothing brands online We can, to be sure, question the hypothesis that the USA is the sole hyperpower. It all depends, of course, on what measure you use and on what groupings you look at. There is certainly a good case for saying that in the fields of trade, finance and economics, US power is not predominant at all. And we can also question the hypothesis that, just because a State is a hyperpower, it will always pursue consistent objectives and seek to impose its will by unilateral diktat. Neither current nor past international practice, as we have been able to observe it, bears out either of those conclusions, even though elements of them can be seen in the behaviour of powerful States in all epochs.

The Processes of Change

Our question remains, however, how the international legal system reacts to an attempt to impose change by the unilateral action of a single powerful State. And here we must be careful not to confuse power with law. Nor, as is generally recognised, must we confuse the basic principle of the legal equality of States with the factual phenomenon of the wide disparities in their actual power. However, the fact that a State is powerful is no protection against a finding (if justified) that its behaviour is unlawful. That is something we are all quite accustomed to from the Judgments of the International Court of Justice. And in the trade field, it is something we are becoming accustomed to from the Decisions of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization.

So the crucial question remains, How does the international legal system react when faced with attempts-never mind the quarter from which the attempt comes- to force the pace of change? Has the nature of that reaction changed? Is it now changing doctorate business administration?

Posted by: armanilively at 07:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.