132 THE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL.

28

of the original text has already disappeared. Further changes are promised
for, "with all the changes that have been made, the present edition still
reflects only partially the transition that is taking place in international
law" (p. xi).
It has obviously oeen one of the editor's main aims to retain the character
of Brierly as an elementary guide. Opinions must di1fer on where, in
pursuance of such a policy, to draw the line with regard to dtation of
literature and discussion of particular problems. It seems to the reviewer
that having raised the question of Austria's membership of the United NatioM
Immediately after explaining Switzerland's reason for refusing to join (p. 131)
the editor ought to have explained Austria's view of its obligations or at
least cited the relevant literature. Again, should not some reference have been
made to Professor Johnson's article on "Prescription" (British Yea,.book of
International Law, 1960, p. 332) in the course of the editor's rewrittten section
on that topic (pp. 167-171)? Would a reference in the section on the equality
of states to Professor Boutros Ghali's lectures in (1960) 9 Recueil del cou,."
be out of place?
No more than the original author can the present editor be accused of beln@:
an idealist, unaware of the realities of the political situation. He is not
afraid to say that the methods of government and economic standards of
statcs critical of the colonial system" fan below those of the colonial regimes
which they criticise" (p. 179). Elsewhere he writes of states which "try to
avoid responsibilities for corrupt or incompetent administration by exaggerated
emphasis on the rights supposed to be inherent in their independent status"
(p. 278). But does not realism compel the admission that Russia is not the
only state to use the veto? The action of Britain and France at the time of
the Suez incident is mentioned in the chapter on international disputes but
nowhere referred to in the discussion of the Security Council in Chapter Three.
Obviously of particular interest are the views of Sir Humphrey on the
legality of the resort to force in modern international law. It is a little
disappointing that in discussing the law relating to treaties the editor states
merely that duress does not invalidate consent and does not consider thl"
possibility that treaties resulting from an unlawful resort to force may be
void. (This point is discussed, with extensive references to the relevant
Iiteratul'e, by Brownlie, International Law ancl the Ulle of Force by State",
p. 404.) Equally disappointing is the avoidance of the question of the
compatibility of NATO with the United Nations Charter; .. there has been
some controversy" (p. 394). The reader is not given the necessary references
to track down the controversy for himself. The main problems discussed ,'it
some length are the continuing legality of self help, the meaning of Article In
and the effect of the Corfu ChanneZ judgment. Sir Humphrey Waldock argues
convincingly that self defence remains an independent right rooted in general
international law; after discussing the problem of defming armed attack and
the possibility of an anticipatory resort to force he concludes that the Charter
has left the scope of the right to resort to self defence in some uncertainty.
The Corfu Cha·nnel case is explained as la~ing down the rule that a state may
forcibly affirm its legal rights against an unlawful attempt to prevent their
exercise provided that the other party was unwilling to resort to pacific
means of settlement. Both points may fairly be considered open to argument:
nonetheless in the present state of international law it seem~ difficult to deny
the force of the learned editor's "iews.
PAUJ. JACKSON.

THE TRIAL 0]," MARIE BESNARD. 'fold by herself. Translated by

DENISE FOLUOT. With a preface by SYBILLE BEDFORD.
rLondon: Heinemann, 1968. 222 pp. 25s. net.]
Two years ago, in her book The Faces of Justice, Mrs. Sybille Bedford
wrote of the ponderous and harsh formalism which had struck her so
.JAN. 1965 REVIEWS 133

un favourably in the procedure before the French Assize Courts and filled
her with misgivings. Marie Desnard's own story of her twelve years' struggle
for life against the seemingly inhuman machinery of (what can only with
an effort be described as) justice, which she introduces with great sympathy
and insight, has seen her worst fears confirmed. Accused of poisoning no
Jess than thirteen people, including her mother and her two husbands, this
country woman from the Poitou saw herself faced with a spate of rumour,
hearsay and prejudice which might well have overwhelmed a less sturdy soul.
Even if the worst was ultimately avoided, this "near-miscarriage of justice"
as Mrs. Bedford calls it was already a grave miscarriage of justice, since
the i1mocent victim was fifty-seven months in prison and in jeopardy of her
life for more than a dozen years. It is a classic instance where all the known
weaknesses of French trials: the endlcss delays and adjournments, the
undue reliance on expert witnesses and not least the terrible urge to obtain
confessions were all combined with devastating effect. The public indignation
aroused by this cwuae celebre and Marie Besnard's artless account of her
experience will, it is hoped, preserve France from a repetition of such a
shameful spectacle. H. A. l-1AMl>lELMANN.

ENTSCHEIDUNGEN DES BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTS. Edited by

the Judges of the Bundesverfassungsgericht. [Tiibingen:
T. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Vol. 10, 1960. viii and 441 pp.;
Vol. II, 1961. viii and 485 pp.; Vol. 12, 1962. xi and 456 pp.;
Vol. 13, 1968. ix and 456 pp.;. Vol. 14, 1963. viii and 384 pp.]
THE last five volumes of decisions of the Federal German Constitutional Court
illustrate the growing importance of the court's work for the economic life
of the country and the increasing tendency on the part of practitioners whos('
original field of work does not readily lead them into the sphere of constitu-
tional arguments to apply to the Constitutional Court for redress against
unusual hardships resulting from ill-considered legislative provisions. Thus
the Feldmtihle-Vrteil (Volume a, p. 263 et. seq.) contains a well justified
criticism of the Act on Changes in the Structure of Stock Companies of
November 12, 1956. This Act enables a sharellolder who owns more than
75 per cent. of the capital of a company to reorganise the company hy passing-
a resolution to the effect that the entire assets of the company may be trans-
ferred to the majority shareholder subject to certain rights of compensation
for the expropriated minorities. These rules apply by analogy where the
majority shareholder is a partnership. The Feldmiihle Aktiengesellschaft was
formed in November 1959. From the beginning two of its shareholders held
approximately 58 per cent. and 22 per cent. of the capital, respectively. These
two majority shareholders then formed a new company which, of course, now
owned about 79 per cent. of the capital of the Feldmiihle A.G. and promptly.
i.e., no more than five weeks after the formation of Feldmiihle A.G., decided
to transfer the capital to thc new company. The minority shareholders were
to receive a compensation which amounted to no more than 90 per cent. of
the current price of the shares at the stock exchange. The Local Court at
Diisseldorf, to which an application had been made for the registration of th€"
change in the Commercial Register, submitted the matter to the Cnnstitutional
Court in order to enable the Court to consider whether the Act of 1956 was
compatible with the basic constitutional guarantee of property rights and
equality before the law. The Constitutional Court held that the objections
which could be raised against the Act of 1956 were not sufficiently grave to
justify holding the Act to be unconstitutional but recommcnded some of the
provisions in the Act for urgent reconsideration by the legislature. Unfortu-
nately judicia.l recommendations are, as experience in this country shows.
frequently disrejl.'arded l1y those to whom they nr(' addressee'!. Invest()rs at