Rank, supra note 34, at 338 39.

Rank, supra note 34, at 340 41.

Richard Rank, Einwirkung des Krieges auf die Nichtpolitischen Staatsverträge (1949).

Richard Rank, Einwirkung des Krieges Auf die Nichtpolitischen Staatsverträge (1949).

See Rank, Cornell Law Quarterly, vol. 38 (1952 1953), p. 343.

Such writers include Tobin, McNair, Fitzmaurice, Rank, Chinkin, and Delbrück.

Richard Rank, Modern War and the Validity of Treaties A Comparative Study (Part I), 38 Cornell Law Quarterly 321 (1952 53) Richard Rank, Modern War and the Validity of Treaties (Part II), 38 Cornell Law Quarterly 511 (1952 53).

Rank, op. cit., pp. 511 and 533, Verzijl, International Law in Historical Perspective, VI, pp. 387 391.

Richard Rank, Modern War and the Validity of Treaties (Part II), 38 Cornell Law Quarterly 511 (1952 1953).

Vol. 45, pp. 205 06 (1951) (book review of Einwirkung des Krieges auf die Nichtpolitischen Staatsverträge by Richard Rank).

For additional uses of the doctrine during armed conflict, see Rank, supra at 338 339 n.

Rank, Cornell Law Quarterly, vol. 38 (1952 1953), pp. 326 and 327.

Richard Rank, Modern War and the Validity of Treaties, A Comparative Study (Part I), 38 Cornell Law Quarterly 321 (1952 1953).

The doctrine of intention is also discussed in Rank (Part I), supra note 34, at 325 333.

Herbert W. Briggs, The Attorney General Invokes Rebus Sic Stantibus, 36 American Journal of International Law 89 (1942) Rank, supra note 34, at 337 38.

Professor Richard Rank also argued that the rebus sic stantibus doctrine does not justify the American action

Further citations may be found in the Secretariat Memorandum, paras. 56 and 57 and in Rank, op. cit., pp. 325 329.

See Rank, Cornell Law Quarterly, vol. 38 (1952 1953), pp. 341 55 McIntyre, Legal Effect of World War II on Treaties of the United States, 1958, pp. 191 199.

Applying Rank's conditions of the rebus doctrine to the situation of armed conflict yields interesting results.

See, e.g., McIntyre, supra note 7 Rank (Part II), supra note 34 IDI study, supra note 18, at v. 59(1), p. 255.

Books on the topic have been written by Robert Jacomet in 1909, Harold Tobin in 1933, Lambertus Erades in 1938, Richard Rank in 1949, Stuart McIntyre in 1958, and Agostino Gialdino in 1959.

This is the position adopted by the Harvard Research Codification (1935), by the American expert James J. Lenoir (an official of the Department of Justice giving his own opinion), and a German expert, Richard Rank.

Rank, Cornell Law Quarterly, vol. 38 (1952 53), pp. 511 533 Whiteman, Digest of International Law XIV, September 1970, pp. 497 505 Verzijl, International Law in a Historical Perspective, VI, 1973, pp. 377 385.

Proposed by Sir Cecil Hurst in his influential 1922 treatment of the subject, the intention test has been espoused to various degrees by a number of other commentators, including McNair, Borchard, Garner, Rank, Lenoir and Hyde.

Significant articles or chapters on the subject have been written by Sir Cecil J. B. Hurst in 1921, Richard Rank in 1952 and 1953, Lord McNair in 1937 and 1961 and Christine Chinkin in 1981, among many others.

In this case, Rank's third and fourth requirements were expressly contradicted by acting Attorney General Biddle, who argued that the United States of America could unilaterally declare the Convention suspended, without consulting the other parties involved.

Amid this criticism, however, Rank did accept that the rebus doctrine could apply to armed conflict if all of the conditions of the doctrine are met, emphasizing that this doctrine could never result in automatic termination of treaties.

An analysis of the true similarity between the effect of armed conflict on treaties and rebus sic stantibus should thus centre upon Rank's third and fourth criteria prohibiting unilateral suspension and requiring the party to submit the case to a competent international authority for review.