ABSTRACT
The difference between our approaches has many facets: different weights given to explicit justifications and inferred motives in the characterisation of State practice; different conceptions of the weight of practice needed to establish qualifications to the rules contained in articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter; and different perceptions of the position of moral imperatives in the contemporary legal order. But in a sense the difference between us was one to be measured in centuries. Unconsciously, I harked back to an approach to international law rooted in the eighteenth century; Michael was thoroughly modern. It is that difference, nowhere more evident that in the context of the principle of non-intervention, that is the subject of this personal tribute to the memory of Michael Akehurst.
