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.

National Legislatures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Cope ◽  
Hooman Movassagh
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Comparative Analyses ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
National Legislatures

One critique of some common-law comparative legal academies is their intensively “court-centric” focus, which, some believe, “marginalize[s]” the role of the legislative branch. The same may be said of the extant comparative international law literature: most of it concerns the interpretive approaches of national courts. In fact, one of the field’s seminal pieces characterizes comparative international law as involving “comparative analyses of various domestic court decisions.” Not surprisingly, then, nearly all of this volume’s contributions deal mostly or exclusively with courts and judicial decisions. We agree that courts can play a large part in diversifying how international law works across different systems, but we contend that the foundation of the comparative international law project lies elsewhere. We argue that among the most important and underappreciated interpretative acts—and therefore, those currently most needing study—are the international law interpretations of national legislatures.

Part 2 National and Regional Reports, Part 2.1 Africa: Coordinated by Jan L Neels and Eesa A Fredericks, 11 Common Law Africa: Common Law African Perspectives on the Hague Principles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oppong Richard Frimpong
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
African Countries ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Hague

This chapter studies the common law African countries Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Their main source of private international law rules is judicial decisions or case law. Because of the relatively underdeveloped nature of their private international law regimes, foreign case law often serves as an important source of persuasive authority. In this regard, the jurisprudence of the English courts is particularly persuasive and is often referred to by the courts. In general, an international convention or treaty does not have the force of law in the legal systems of the countries under study, unless it is expressly incorporated into national law. In essence, they are dualist countries. However, courts in some of the countries under study have demonstrated a willingness to seek guidance from international treaties that are not yet domestically in force, if the circumstances are appropriate. Thus, it is possible, that courts in the countries under study may be receptive to the Hague Principles, especially if argued by counsel.

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.

Rethinking the relationship between international and national law at the turn

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
IGOR N. BARTSITS ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
National Courts ◽  
National Legal System ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to revealing the specifics of the implementation of such areas of constitutional law as the constitutionalization of international law and the internationalization of constitutional law by the example of additions to Article 79 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as the practices of the Italian Constitutional Court, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, etc. The author examined in sufficient detail the procedures for extending the effect of international law and international treaties of Russia to the national legal system, analyzed the concept of counter-limits in European and national judicial practice, presented the basic principles of interaction between European and national courts (the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of proportionality, the principle of ‘sincere cooperation’, method of ‘dialogue of judges’). There is a need for an updated understanding of the term ‘constitutional sovereignty of the state’, which is based on domestic norms on fundamental rights and norms on the foundations of the constitutional system, which presupposes the inadmissibility of any foreign or international influence that violates the requirement of priority of the norms and principles of the national Constitution in the national legal system. The article substantiates the expediency of using the doctrine of counter-limits in the Russian Federation as an instrument of constitutional self-defense, ensuring constitutional sovereignty and preserving constitutional identity.

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.

scholarly journals Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya

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 ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
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.

(Dis)solving the Chronological Paradox in Customary International Law: A Hartian Approach

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lefkowitz
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Resolution Function ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Normative Standard

As traditionally conceived, the creation of a new rule of customary international law requires that states believe the law to already require the conduct specified in the rule. Distinguishing the process whereby a customary rule comes to exist from the process whereby that customary rule becomes law dissolves this chronological paradox. Creation of a customary rule requires only that states come to believe that there exists a normative standard to which they ought to adhere, not that this standard is law. What makes the customary rule law is adherence by officials in the international legal system to a rule of recognition that treats custom as a source of valid law. Confusion over this distinction arises because in the international legal system the same agents whose beliefs give rise to a customary rule are the legal officials whose adherence to the rule of recognition leads them to deem that rule legally valid. The proposed solution to the chronological paradox employs H.L.A. Hart’s analysis of the concepts of law and a legal system, and in particular, the idea of a rule of recognition. Yet Hart famously denies the existence of a rule of recognition for international law. Hart’s denial rests on a failure to distinguish between the ontological and authoritative resolution functions of a rule of recognition, however. Once such a distinction is drawn, it can be argued that customary international law rests on a rule of recognition that serves the ontological function of making customary norms legal, though not the authoritative resolution function of settling disputes over the alleged legality of particular norms.

THE LIBERAL CONSTITUTION AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-149
Author(s):  
Fernando R. Tesón
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Trade Barriers ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Liberal Government ◽  
The Government ◽  
Improved Methods ◽  
The U.S

AbstractScholars have debated the meaning of the foreign-relations clauses in the U.S. Constitution. This essay attempts to outline the foreign-relations clauses that an ideal constitution should have. A liberal constitution must enable the government to implement a morally defensible foreign policy. The first priority is the defense of liberty. The constitution must allow the government to effectively defend persons, territory, and liberal institutions themselves. The liberal government should also contribute to the advancement of global freedom, subject to a number of conditions, especially cost. The essay recommends improved methods to incorporate treaties and customary international law into the constitutional structure. Treaties should be approved by the whole legislature and should generally be self-executing. Customary law should be genuine, not fake, and consistent with liberal principles. Finally, based on economic theory and evidence, the essay recommends that liberal constitutions prohibit the government from erecting trade barriers. It concludes by tentatively proposing concrete constitutional language to implement these recommendations.

International Law within the Israel Legal System

1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 451-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The State ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Military ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
High Seas

Since the establishment of the State and up to the present day, Israeli law has had to deal with a great number of various problems in the field of international law, e.g. whether the State of Israel is a successor to the obligations of the Mandatory government; the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts with regard to offences committed in demilitarized zones or beyond the State's boundaries (on the high seas or abroad); the immunity of foreign states and their representatives from the jurisdiction of Israeli courts and from measures of execution; the status of international organizations and of their employees; the effect and implications of official acts performed within the territory of a state which is at war with Israel; the effect of international treaties in Israel; the question whether the Eastern neighbourhoods of Jerusalem are part of Israel; various issues concerning extradition, and of course, many questions regarding the laws of war: the powers of the military governor, and in particular his power to expropriate land in the territories under Israeli control and to expel residents from the territories, the extent of his legislative powers, etc.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document