ABSTRACT
Semasiological quibbles may often contribute to a better understanding of a subject: David Baldwin's recent examination of the uses and abuses of the word 'interdependence' is an illustration. More often than not, however, inquiries into the meaning of words may obfuscate more than they illuminate, for the inexorable tendency of those who take semantic digressions is to seek to impose evangelistically their understanding of a word on etymological heretics. The juristic interpretation of sanctions underlay the entire structure and raison d'etre of the League of Nations, and underwrote the Covenant signed at Versailles. While the Covenant did not make war a delict under all circumstances, it did circumscribe the legitimate or rightful use of force by states. If the Covenant of the League provided that specifically identified transgressions be punished by specific penalties, the Charter of the United Nations takes a considerable step away from the notion of vindicatory punishments for specified delicts.
