Bibliographic Essay 597sor, detente, from the standpoint of international law, see Edward McWhinney, Th e
International Law of Detente: Arms Control, Eu ro pe an Security and East- West Coop-
eration (Sijthoff and Noordhoff International, 1978).
On the Brezhnev Doctrine in historical perspective, see Robert A. Jones, Th e Soviet
Concept of “Limited Sovereignty” from Lenin to Gorbachev: Th e Brezhnev Doctrine
(Macmillan, 1990). For the canonical exposition of the doctrine itself, see Sergei
Kovalev, “Sovereignty and International Duties of Socialist Countries,” Pravda, Sep.
25, 1968; translated and reprinted in 7 ILM 1323– 25 (1968).
Th e Reagan Doctrine was never encapsulated into a single specifi c formulation. For
the best exposition of it, see Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick and Allan Gerson, “Th e Reagan
Doctrine, Human Rights, and International Law,” in Louis Henkin et al., Right v.
Might: International Law and the Use of Force (Council on Foreign Relations, 1991),
19– 36. For a thorough general history of the Reagan Doctrine in action, though not
from a legal perspective, see James M. Scott, Deciding to Intervene: Th e Reagan Doc-
trine and American Foreign Policy (Duke University Press, 1996). On the two doc-
trines considered together and subjected to legal analysis, see W. Michael Reisman,
“New Wine in Old Bottles: Th e Reagan and Brezhnev Doctrines in Contemporary
International Law and Practice,” 13 Yale J. Int’l L. 171– 98 (1988), which argues (cau-
tiously) for their lawfulness.
On the activity of the World Court in the fi rst half century aft er its reestablishment
in 1946 (as the International Court of Justice), see Vaughan Lowe and Malgosia
Fitzmaurice (eds.), Fift y Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour
of Sir Robert Jennings (Cambridge University Press, 1996), especially 179– 385, where
the court’s contributions to eleven areas of substantive law are covered. On the Inter-
national Law Commission, see R. P. Dhokalia, Th e Codifi cation of Public Interna-
tional Law (Manchester University Press, 1970), 145– 332; and Jeff rey S. Morton, Th e
International Law Commission of the United Nations (University of South Carolina
Press, 2000).
In post- 1945 realist and positivist thought, a key fi gure has been Georg Schwarzen-
berger. On his life and career, see Stephanie Steinle, “Georg Schwarzenberger (1908–
1991),” in Jack Beatson and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), Jurists Uprooted: German-
Speaking Émigré Lawyers in Twentieth- Century Britain, 663– 80 (Oxford University
Press, 2004); and, at greater length, Stephanie Steinle, Völkerrecht und Machtpolitik:
Georg Schwarzenberger (1908– 1991) (Nomos, 2002).
On trends in socialist thought on international law since 1945, see John N. Hazard,
“Renewed Emphasis upon a Socialist International Law,” 65 AJIL 142– 48 (1971); and
W. W. Ku l s k i , “ Th e Soviet Interpretation of International Law,” 49 AJIL 518– 34 (1955).
On Krylov, see Zigurds L. Zile, “A Soviet Contribution to International Adjudication:
Professor Krylov’s Jurisprudential Legacy,” 58 AJIL 359– 88 (1964). On Tunkin, see
W. E. Butler, “Th e Learned Writings of Professor G. I. Tunkin,” 4 JHIL 394– 423 (2002).
Solidarist thought became a major feature of international law aft er 1945, but the
literature on it is surprisingly thin. On Julius Stone, see Edward McWhinney, “Julius