Lauterpacht: The Victorian Tradition in International Law

Abstract

Less than two months after the capitulation at Munich, on 16 November 1938, Hersch Lauterpacht delivered an address to the League of Nations Union of Cambridge University, his new academic home. The general subject of his presentation was the League of Nations. In his opening remarks, he confided to his audience that this was a topic about which he felt so strongly that he was unable to trust the 'freely spoken word' and that, while it was not his custom, he would read from a manuscript in order to maintain restraint and deliberation. 1 Nonetheless, the address departed from Lauterpacht's customary detached and complicated, somewhat dry English at several points, most notably when, shortly after the middle of his speech, he switched to the first person plural. The address opened with the argument that the events of the 1930s-the Manchorian and Abyssinian wars, as well as the Munich accords-and the positions assumed by key League members had resulted in the Covenant's collective security provisions, the territorial guarantee (Article 10) and the obligation of collective response (Articles 15 and 16) falling into desuetude. In fulfilling its principal objective, Lauterpacht claimed, the League had failed. All that remained was the hope, he asserted without conviction, 'that the true spirit of man will assert itself in the long run'. Then followed the abrupt and uncharacteristic jump into informality and engagement: But what have we to do in the meantime? Ought we to abandon the League and start afresh as soon as the obstacles disappear? Ought we to maintain it and to adapt it to the needs of a retrogressive period? Ought we to pursue the ideal of universality by reforming the League so as to make it acceptable for everyone? Ought we to admit that if peace