In 1928, the tribunal in the ‘Naulilaa’ arbitration held that the range of actions open to a State in response to a breach by another State of its international obligations was ‘limited by the requirements of humanity’.1 A few years later, the Institut de droit international adopted a resolution declaring that in the adoption of measures of reprisal, a State must ‘abstain from any harsh measure which would be contrary to the laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience’.2 Since these early pronouncements, the idea that the performance of certain...
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
content. Please,
subscribe
or
login
to access all content.