Customary International Law in the Supreme Court, 1946–2000

High Court ◽

Additional Protocol ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/files_eng/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.pdf>.Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, December 13, 2006.In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel1 Targeted Killings) the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, examined the legality of Israel's “preventative targeted killings” of members of militant Palestinian organizations. The Court's unanimous conclusion reads:The result of the examination is not that such strikes are always permissible or that they are always forbidden. The approach of customary international law applying to armed conflicts of an international nature is that civilians are protected from attacks by the army. However, that protection does not exist regarding those civilians “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” (§51(3) of [Additional Protocol I]). Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no less harmful means, and on the condition that innocent civilians are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportional. (Para. 60)

Customary International Law in the Supreme Court, 1901–1945

International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court ◽

10.1017/cbo9780511977121.008 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 225-256

Author(s):

Michael D. Ramsey

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya et al. (S.C.C.)

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/ilm.2020.38 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 59 (5) ◽

pp. 747-810

Author(s):

Russell Hopkins

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

Common Law ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

In a judgment delivered on February 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada held (by majority, 7–2) that Canadian common law does not contain an all-encompassing doctrine of non-justiciability based on foreign acts of state; and (by a narrower majority, 5–4) that alleged breaches of customary international law (CIL) arguably provide a novel cause of action in tort. The court held that claims against a Canadian mining corporation related to alleged violations at a mine in Eritrea could proceed to trial.

DUAL ATTRIBUTION OF ACTS COMMITTED BY A UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE: AN EMERGING NORM OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW? THE DUTCH SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENTS IN NUHANOVIÇ AND MUSTAFIĆ

The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online ◽

10.1163/22116133-90230048 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 23 (1) ◽

pp. 287-297 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Christine Bakker

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

The Netherlands ◽

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

Access To Justice ◽

Judicial Practice ◽

Un Peacekeeping ◽

European Court ◽

In two cases lodged by victims (or their relatives) of the massacre in Srebrenica in 1995, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has taken a progressive stance on the interpretation of international law on the responsibility of States and international organizations for wrongful acts. The Supreme Court upheld the earlier decisions of The Hague Court of Appeal, confirming that the Netherlands can be held responsible for the death and injuries of these victims, despite the fact that the Dutch troops employed to protect this enclave were part of a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force. By accepting the possibility of dual attribution of an internationally wrongful act to both the UN and the troop-sending State, it has departed from the restrictive approach adopted in current judicial practice, in particular by the European Court of Human Rights. In this note, the Supreme Court’s judgments are discussed, focusing on (i) the question of dual attribution of an international wrongful act, and (ii) the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties. It concludes that, although the Supreme Court’s reliance on two sets of Draft Articles of the International Law Commission without referring to any State practice is surprising, these judgments should be welcomed as significant precedents, which may contribute to the development of a norm of customary international law. They also constitute an important step towards ensuring access to justice and reparation for the victims of gross human rights violations, such as those committed in Srebrenica.

Customary International Law in the Supreme Court, 1861–1900

International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court ◽

10.1017/cbo9780511977121.004 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 89-123

Author(s):

David J. Bederman

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

In the Name of the International: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Internationalist Transformation of Canadian Private International Law

Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international ◽

10.1017/s0069005800007566 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 39 ◽

pp. 117-209 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Robert Wai

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

Law Reform ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Private International Law ◽

International Treaties ◽

Public International Law ◽

Liberal Internationalism ◽

SummaryThis article discusses four judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada that transformed private international law in Canada and represent a striking episode in the internationalization of law — a form of judicial activism in the name of the international. It is argued that these cases evidence a mode of internationalization by internationalist policy consciousness that is distinct from, although often complementary to, internationalization via the mechanism of international treaties or changes in customary international law. The key features of this approach suggest some resemblances to the vision found in the traditions of liberal internationalism, Canadian internationalism, and public international law. The article cautions against several general dangers in the use of this approach in law reform and adjudication and uses two specific doctrinal issues in private international law to demonstrate what a richer policy discourse concerning internationalism would be.

The Namibian Constitution, International Law and the Courts: a Critique

Global Journal of Comparative Law ◽

10.1163/2211906x-00902005 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 271-296

Author(s):

Ndjodi Ndeunyema

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

International Agreements ◽

Direct Application ◽

Soft Law ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Domestic Courts ◽

General Principles Of Law

This article examines the Namibian position in relation to the domestic application of international law. Through an analysis of Article 144 as the primary Constitutional touchstone provision, the meaning and binding nature of international agreements is unpacked, in the process identifying how these sources become part of Namibian law. Moreover, the paper advances that Article 144’s phraseology renders both customary international law and general principles of law as sources of binding law in Namibia. A critique of the judicial application of international law, particularly by the Supreme Court, also reveals inconsistencies and errors. In addition to international law’s direct application, the paper identifies the parallel interpretative functionality of international law and enquires into the appropriate method for interpreting international law by domestic courts. The paper concludes by determining the relevance of soft law sources as deliberative, and potentially persuasive interpretative aids.

Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/ajil.2020.103 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 115 (1) ◽

pp. 107-114

Author(s):

Beatrice A. Walton

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

Common Law ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

National Courts ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Right Of Action

In Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to dismiss a series of customary international law claims brought by Eritrean refugees against a Canadian mining corporation for grave human rights abuses committed in Eritrea. In doing so, the Supreme Court opened the possibility of a novel front for transnational human rights litigation: common law tort claims based on customary international law. Under the doctrine of adoption, customary international law is directly incorporated into the Canadian common law. However, Canadian courts have not yet upheld a private right of action for violations of customary international law. Writing for a divided court (5–4), Justice Abella allowed the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed, finding that it is not “plain and obvious” that the plaintiffs’ customary international law claims are bound to fail under either Canada's burgeoning “transnational” or “foreign relations” law, or international law itself. In reaching this conclusion, she offered a unique and overdue reflection on the role of national courts in identifying, adopting, and developing custom. A larger majority of the court (7–2) also rejected outright the application of the act of state doctrine in Canada, tracking several common law systems in limiting the doctrine in favor of human rights litigants.

Proposals for the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with Regard to Drafting the Ruling of Its Plenum on Applying Section VI “Private International Law” of Part Three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

International Соmmercial Arbitration Review ◽

10.32875/icar.2018.1.300 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2018 (1) ◽

pp. 300-332

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

Russian Federation ◽

Civil Code ◽

Private International Law ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Russian Federation

Private International Law

10.1093/oso/9780199489282.001.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

V.C. Govindaraj

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

Private International Law ◽

Conflict Of Laws ◽

Application Of Law ◽

Cross Border ◽

Corrective Measures ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Law

In deciding cases of private international law or conflict of laws, as it is widely known, judges of the Supreme Court in India generally consult the works of renowned English jurists like Dicey and Cheshire. This volume argues that our country should have its own system of resolving inter-territorial issues with cross-border implications. The author critically analyses cases covering areas such as the law of obligations, the law of persons, the law of property, foreign judgments, and foreign arbitral awards. The author provides his perspectives on the application of law in each case. The idea is to find out where the judges went wrong in deciding cases of private international law, so that corrective measures can be taken in future to resolve disputes involving complex, extra-territorial issues.