nuclear matters, under which nuclear materials, equipment, and facilities
which have been transferred from one contracting party to another contract-
ing party may be used by the latter only for 'peaceful purposes'. ²⁰ Is the
United States prepared to allow the word 'peaceful' in these treaties to be
interpreted by the other parties as meaning also 'non-aggressive' and not
'non-military'? Is that the reply that the United States is getting from some of
the States which have already misused the nuclear assistance they have
received in order to make bombs, non-aggressive bombs no doubt? If not, it
should not take them long to learn what is the interpretation of the word
'peaceful' favoured by the United States, unless the United States itself takes
immediate steps to revise its attitude in the matter.

The United States occupying as it does a pre-eminent position in the world,
its opinio juris must obviously carry great weight in the formation of rules of
general international law. However, in regard to both the question of delimi-
tation of outer space and the interpretation of the expression 'peaceful', par-
ticularly in relation to the 1967 Space Treaty, the United States has persisted
in attitudes it took up at the very beginning of the space age. It is hoped that
at least a case has been made to show that its rather strange interpretation of
the word 'peaceful' to mean 'non-aggressive' and not 'non-military', harbours
serious consequences for international law. It is to be hoped that the issues it
raises will not only be given some serious thought by the United States, and
by space lawyers and general international lawyers everywhere, but will also
receive the attention of the public at large; for some things may be too impor-
tant to be left entirely in the hands of government officials and lawyers alone.

-522-