Geoffrey Marston.United Kingdom Materials on International Law 1986 // British Yearbook of International Law. — 1987-01-01. — Т. 57, вып. 1. — С. 487–654. — ISSN0068-2691. — doi:10.1093/bybil/57.1.487. — «But the overwhelming majority of contemporary legal opinion comes down against the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention, for three main reasons: first, the UN Charter and the corpus of modern international law do not seem specifically to incorporate such a right; secondly, state practice in the past two centuries, and especially since 1945, at best provides only a handful of genuine cases of humanitarian intervention, and, on most assessments, none at all; and finally, on prudential grounds, that the scope for abusing such a right argues strongly against its creation»
Geoffrey Marston.United Kingdom Materials on International Law 1986 // British Yearbook of International Law. — 1987-01-01. — Т. 57, вып. 1. — С. 487–654. — ISSN0068-2691. — doi:10.1093/bybil/57.1.487. — «But the overwhelming majority of contemporary legal opinion comes down against the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention, for three main reasons: first, the UN Charter and the corpus of modern international law do not seem specifically to incorporate such a right; secondly, state practice in the past two centuries, and especially since 1945, at best provides only a handful of genuine cases of humanitarian intervention, and, on most assessments, none at all; and finally, on prudential grounds, that the scope for abusing such a right argues strongly against its creation»
Geoffrey Marston.United Kingdom Materials on International Law 1986 // British Yearbook of International Law. — 1987-01-01. — Т. 57, вып. 1. — С. 487–654. — ISSN0068-2691. — doi:10.1093/bybil/57.1.487. — «But the overwhelming majority of contemporary legal opinion comes down against the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention, for three main reasons: first, the UN Charter and the corpus of modern international law do not seem specifically to incorporate such a right; secondly, state practice in the past two centuries, and especially since 1945, at best provides only a handful of genuine cases of humanitarian intervention, and, on most assessments, none at all; and finally, on prudential grounds, that the scope for abusing such a right argues strongly against its creation»
