OCR Text |
Show -133- characterizes the view of absolute territorial sovereignty as based upon an individualistic, anarchic*l conception of international law, in which selfish interests are exclusively taken as the rule of conduct and no solution is offered regarding the opposite interests of upper and lower riparians. (Trans.)^ Andrassy, in lectures at the Hague Academy of International Law, made a detailed analysis of the studies of publicists, and concludes that international law does impose obligations on co-riparians#3 Andrassy has also reviewed the position of the few publicists supporting the view of absolute sovereign rights.** He disagrees and affirms the existence of principles in limitation of sovereignty. The alleged principle of absolute sovereignty has never been acted upnn by any state and must be relegated to the realm of abstraction. Sauser-Hall's lectures at the Hague Academy of International Law have been referred to above in connection with general principles of law.5 He also urges the evolution of rules "in a manner which will reconcile, as harmoniously as possible, the particular interests of each State with those of other interested States, (Trans,)6 Lauterpacht, in addition to his views quoted above in regard to general principles of law, also says: 1. Loc. cit., n. 1, p. 104, above 2. Ibid., p. 15 3. Les Relations Internationales de Vorsinage, 79 Recuel des Cours 104 (195D k. Utilisation Des Eux Internationales Non Maritimes (En Dehors de la. Navigation), Institute de Droit International (1957) 5. P. 118. 6. Loc. cit,, p. 474 |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |