be morally justifiable. These are the provisions prohibiting the use of force in the settlement of international disputes, without the authority of the Security Council, otherwise than in self-defence. These provisions create solemn obligations to which all members of the U.N. are committed by their own consent. Can there be a moral right or duty to act as if such obligations are of no significance ? The contrary opinion of the Foreign Affairs Committee suggests a serious failure to appreciate the importance to mankind of the Charter and the United Nations. For the main purpose of the Charter, as set out in its preamble, was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge or war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." It is not clear that there can ever be moral justification for frustrating such a purpose. Even assuming, however, that the theoretical possibility of such a justification exists, it can hardly be doubted that the right to invoke it depends upon clear and convincing proof of the justificatory facts. This burden of proof must be even greater where the degree of force employed is as great as it was in this case. For the NATO intervention involved an attack by 18 states, with a combined population of about 600 million, upon a single state, with a population of only 10 million. It involved the dropping, by day and by night, of 24,000 bombs and missiles upon populated areas. It resulted in the death or maiming