5 Customary International Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Common Law ◽  
State Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Status ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the status in the U.S. legal system of customary international law, which was historically referred to as part of the “law of nations.” After considering what the text of the Constitution suggests about this issue, the chapter discusses how courts historically applied customary international law in cases in which it was relevant and how courts referred to it (in cases such as The Paquete Habana) as “part of our law.” The chapter also recounts the modern debates and uncertainties about the current domestic legal status of customary international law. In particular, the chapter explores the possibility that customary international law might have the status of post-Erie “federal common law” and what such a status might mean for questions of jurisdiction, preemption of state law, and limitations on congressional and executive authority. It also discusses various ways in which customary international law can be important in the U.S. legal system even if it is not applied directly by the courts, such as through the Charming Betsy canon of construction. The chapter concludes by discussing controversies concerning the Supreme Court’s consideration of foreign and international law materials when interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

5 Customary International Law

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
State Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
The Status ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the status in the U.S. legal system of customary international law. After considering what the text of the Constitution suggests about this issue, the chapter discusses how courts historically applied customary international law in cases in which it was relevant and how courts referred to it as “part of our law.” The chapter also explores the possibility that customary international law might have the status of modern “federal common law” and what such a status might mean for questions of jurisdiction, preemption of state law, and limitations on congressional and executive authority. It also discusses ways in which customary international law can be applied indirectly in the U.S. legal system, such as through application of the Charming Betsy canon of construction. The chapter concludes by discussing recent debates over the Supreme Court’s consideration of foreign and international law materials when interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

International Human Rights Law

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aryeh Neier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Civilized Society ◽  
The U.S

This chapter focuses on the two sources of international law: custom and treaties. Customary international law is the term used to describe rules that are so widely accepted and so deeply held that they help to define what it means to belong to a civilized society. The question of whether customary international law is binding on the United States came before the U.S. Supreme Court as long ago as 1900 in a case called Paquete Habana. Whereas treaty law often covers the same ground as customary international law. Torture is forbidden by customary international law, for example, and prohibitions against torture are also set forth in several multilateral treaties. The effect is to reinforce recognition that a particular norm set forth in a treaty has the status of customary law.

International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 94-116
Author(s):  
Aryeh Neier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Civilized Society ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses custom and treaties as the two sources of international law. It explains the customary international law as the term used to describe rules that are widely accepted and deeply held and are used to define what it means to belong to a civilized society. It also recounts the case called “Paquete Habana” in the U.S. Supreme Court that addresses the question of whether customary international law is binding on the United States. The chapter talks about the treaty law or conventional law as the source of multilateral conventions that often covers the same ground as customary international law. It analyzes the prohibitions against “torture” that are set forth in several multilateral treaties and reinforce recognition that a particular norm set forth in a treaty has the status of customary law.

scholarly journals Kiobel and the New Battle Over Congressional Intent

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 9-13
Author(s):  
David H. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Transnational human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) has been plagued by the overarching question of the domestic legal status of customary international law (CIL). Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is the Supreme Court's second installment on the ATS. Like Sosa v. Alvarez-Machainbefore it, Kiobel does not expressly address the domestic legal status of CIL, but it does provide clues. Those clues suggest two insights: the Court views CIL as external to U.S. law, rather than as part of federal common law, and the role of CIL in future cases may be affected less by arguments about CIL's status as federal common law than by arguments about congressional intent.

United States v. Dire

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 644-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Kontorovich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The World ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

In the first criminal piracy decision by a United States court in nearly a century, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the federal piracy statute’s reference to the “law of nations” explicitly ties the scope of the offense to evolving customary international law definitions of the crime. The court went on to find that under current customary and treaty law, attempted piracy falls within the scope of the international crime. In doing so, it joined several courts in nations around the world that have confronted the issue as a result of the outbreak of Somali piracy that began in 2008.

scholarly journals Evolution of Individual Status in International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Sayel Mofleh Momani ◽  
Maher Saleh Al-Jubouri ◽  
Noor Akef Al-Dabbas
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
The Status ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

Each legal system has individuals who are addressed with its rules and that the legal rules of the legal system are designed to regulate the relationship between these individuals, and one individual can have legal personality in more than one legal system. The legal personality of these individuals is highlighted by the relationship between them and the legal system in which arranges for them rights and impose obligations on them. The rights and duties of a legal person are not the same; they vary from person to person within the same legal system, and vary from one legal system to another. With regard to the international legal order, it has its own international legal persons, foremost among them States. As for the individual, his legal status under general international law is still not clearly defined and is a subject of controversy among the jurists and interpreters of international law. We will present the position of international jurisprudence on the status of the individual in the first demand, the rules of international law that address individuals directly in a second demand, and the right to submit complaints and claims at the international level in a third demand.

The Constitution of the United States and Foreign Relations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin S. Flaherty
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
Executive Agreements

Foreign relations under the US Constitution starts with the paradox, also seen in domestic matters, of relatively scant text providing guidance for the exercise of vast power. Founding understandings, structural inference, and ongoing constitutional custom and precedent have filled in much, though hardly all, of the framework over the course of two hundred years. As a result, two basic questions frame the relationship between the Constitution and US foreign policy: (1) which parts of the US government, alone or in combination, properly exercise authority in the making of foreign policy; and (2) once made, what is the status of the nation’s international legal obligations in the US domestic legal system. The making of American foreign policy is framed by the Constitution’s commitment to separation of powers. Congress, the president, and the courts are all allocated discrete yet significant foreign affairs authority. Determining the exact borders and overlaps in areas such as the use of military force, emergency measures, and treaty termination continues to generate controversy. The status of international law in the US legal system in the first instance turns on whether resulting obligations derive from agreements or custom. The United States enters into international agreements in three ways: treaties, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. Complex doctrine deals with the domestic applicability of treaties in particular. US courts primarily apply customary international law in two basic ways. They can exercise a version of their common lawmaking authority to fashion rules of decision based on international custom. They also apply customary international law when incorporated into domestic law by statute.

International Legal Hierarchy Revisited – The Status of Obligations Erga Omnes

2011 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf Linderfalk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Evidence ◽  
The Status ◽  
Wide Scale ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
Legal Arguments ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Peculiar Nature

AbstractIncreasingly, international legal arguments exploit the peculiar nature of obligations erga omnes. This practice raises questions about the precise legal status of norms expressing such obligations relative to other norms of international law. According to an oft-made suggestion, whether a norm is part of the international jus cogens or not, when it expresses obligations erga omnes it is hierarchically superior to all other norms of non-peremptory international law. This essay inquires into the justification of this theory – throughout the essay referred to as “the Theory on the Superior Status of Erga Omnes Obligations”. As shown in section 2, irrespective of whether inferential legal evidence exists or not, the Theory on the Superior Status of Obligations Erga Omnes can be explained by reference to the non-reciprocal character of such obligations. However, logic requires that the theory be restated to include also interdependent obligations and obligations erga omnes partes. As shown in section 3, although inferential legal evidence provides some support for the Theory on the Superior Status of Obligations Erga Omnes, the evidence is not entirely consistent. As shown in section 4, if the theory on the superior status of obligations erga omnes is adopted and applied on a wide scale, this will have detrimental effects on the overall understanding of international law. Rather than a more properly functioning international legal system, confusion and disorganization will ensue.

Bangladesh

2019 ◽  
pp. 603-628
Author(s):  
Kamal Hossain ◽  
Sharif Bhuiyan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Provision ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
National Courts

This chapter focuses on international law in Bangladesh. Neither the Constitution of Bangladesh nor any statute contains any specific provision on domestic application of international law rules. However, it is well settled by various judicial decisions that in respect of domestic application of international treaties, Bangladesh is a dualist country. In order to be applied by national courts, it is necessary for the treaty to be incorporated into Bangladesh’s legal system by an act of incorporation. In respect of customary international law, there is no clear judicial decision on whether customary law automatically forms part of Bangladesh law or whether, like treaties, such law is required to be made a part of Bangladesh law by a legislative, judicial, or other measure. It is likely that Bangladesh courts will adhere to the English and common law tradition of treating customary international law as automatically forming part of Bangladesh law as long as there is no inconsistent domestic legal provision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document