※ 질문하기 ---- 답변은덧글이 아니라 답글로 해 주세요.
[안 내]
막연한 질문 제목이 아니라 질문 내용에 적절한 제목을 정해 주세요.
질문에 대한 답변을 얻은 뒤 자신의 게시글을 삭제하지 마십시오.
질문할 때 예의를 지키시기 바랍니다.(빨리 해달라... 고수분만 해달라... 이런 식의 요구는글쎄요....)
답변은 덧글보다는 답글로 해주세요. 삭제 방지 및 카페 게시글 증가 효가가 있습니다.
답변을 얻은 뒤에는 반드시 감사의 덧글을 남겨 주세요.
질문내용은 아래 칸에 입력해주세요~질문내용 : It is significant too that when a breach of international law is alleged by one party to a controversy, the act impugned is practically never defended by claiming the right of private judgement, which would be the natural defence if the issue concerned the morality of the act, but always by attempting to prove that no rule has been violated. This was true of the defences put forward even for such palpable breaches of international law as the invasion of Belgium in 1914, or the bombardment of Corfu in 1923. But if international law is not the same thing as international morality, and if in some important respects at least it certainly resembles law, why should we hesitate to accept its definitely legal character? The objection comes in the main from the followers of writers such as Hobbes and Austin, who regard nothing as law which is not the will of a political superior. But this is a misleading and inadequate analysis even of the law of a modern state; it cannot, for instance, unless we distort the facts so as to fit them into the definition, account for the existence of the English Common Law.