ABSTRACT
A unilateral cancellation of a concession in and of itself was not immediately considered to constitute a violation of international law, but as mentioned in Borchard's previously described interpretation and in the arbitral award of the International Fisheries Company Case, the lawfulness under general international law was debated in regard to the infringement of rights accompanying the unilateral cancellation of the concessions and the remedies with respect thereto. After the 1950s as well, many academic doctrines and practices supported the principle that a host state's unilateral cancellation of an agreement for the development of natural resources in and of itself did not constitute a violation of international law, in principle. While international law and general principles of law are recognized as the governing law of the agreement, the people arguing for these interpretations assert the rules to limit a unilateral revision or cancellation in a stricter manner than the traditional theory about limiting nationalization.
