Table of Contents
I. Sources of Int’l Law……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Customary International Law……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
State Practice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
The Paquete Habana:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Int’l Instruments & Progressive Development………………………………………………………………………….. 7
The Steamship Lotus Case (France v. Turkey) (1927) PCIJ:…………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Filaritga v. Pena-Irala 328………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Treaties……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Treaties Defined By International Law……………………………………………………………………………………. 9
Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties (VCLT)…………………………………………………………………….. 9
Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties (VCLT) Articles 2,3,67,8,42,51,52…………………………………………………… 10
Cyprus Conflict 37……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Treaties Status as a Source of Int’l Law……………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Treaty Formation, Reservation Declarations & Understandings………………………………………………. 12
RUDs – Reservations, Understanding, Declaration………………………………………………………………….. 12
Reservation to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment to the Crime of Genocide: 70…………………. 12
Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties (VCLT) Articles 31, 32, 53, 56, 60, 64…………………………………………….. 12
Int’l Convention on Civil and Political Rights (Why the US Attaches Reservations) 474……………………………………… 13
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Report on the ICCRP Reservation……………………………………………………… 14
Michael Domigues, Petitioner v. State of Nevada, Brief for the US as Amirus Curiae 485…………………………….. 14
General Principles of Law………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
Proportionality of countermeasures in international Law – Thomas Frank…………………………………………………….. 15
Preemptory Norms……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
Al-Adsani V. The United Kingdom……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA)………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
II. Relationship Between Int’l Law and Municipal Law………………………………………….. 19
Monism & Dualism……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Ratification of the European Union Treaty……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Thoburn v. Sunderland:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Self-Executing Treaty Doctrine…………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Medellin v. Texas 2008…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Executive Power With Regard to US Foreign Affairs………………………………………………………….. 23
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Goldwater v. Carter:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
US Treaty Interpretation……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 25
Extradition Treaties…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
US v. Alvarez-Machain 404……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
Hague Evidence Convention (multilateral 17 countries including US)……………………………………………. 26
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatial v. US Dist. Crt. for the S. Dist. Of Iowa:…………………………………………. 26
The UN Convention On The Contracts For International Sale Of Goods (CISG)………………………………. 27
MCC-Marble Ceramic Center, Inc., v. Ceramica Nuova d’Agostino,……………………………………………………………….. 27
US Use of Restatements……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
Int’l Law & Federalism…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
Sub-State Government Entities 234…………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council:………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
American Insurance Association v. Garamendi:……………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Role of State Courts and State Procedural Rules………………………………………………………………….. 30
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31
Difference between Sanchez and Medellin:………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
Missouri v. Holland:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Reid v. Covert:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
III. State & Non-State Actors……………………………………………………………………………………….. 34
Formation of New States……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Class 16: DRW pp. 111-44…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
TWEN: Restatement §§ 201, 205, 206…………………………………………………………………………………… 34
Montevideo Convention Requisites of Statehood:…………………………………………………………………… 34
Recognition:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Restatement §§ 201, 205, 206……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
The former Yugoslavia 113……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Tribunals:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
International Criminal Court (ICC) statute:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
State Succession and Changes in Government…………………………………………………………………….. 36
Advising the President on Recognition:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 36
Transnational Corporations………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37
Responsibilities and Liabilities……………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
Oil Case Hypo:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
Child Labor Hypo TNC2 (2 corporation)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39
The Ratner Article;………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
Regulation of Transnational Corporations: Conflicts of Jurisdiction………………………………………….. 40
§ 402. Bases Of Jurisdiction To Prescribe (Foreign Relations of the US)……………………………………………………………. 40
§ 403. Limitations On Jurisdiction To Prescribe…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 40
CIA Rendition Article:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
Bases of Jurisdiction (Restatement 402)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Regulating Business…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41
S.S. Lotus case 356………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
Hartford Fire Ins. v. California 368…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
Effects on Territory / People (jurisdictional basis that applies):……………………………………………………………………………. 43
Timberlane Lumber v. Bank of America 366………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Int’l Organizations as an Alternative to Unilateral State Regulation………………………………… 43
State Espousal:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Reparation for Injuries:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)…………………………………………………………………………. 46
Shrimp Turtle Dispute:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
Tuna-Dolphin dispute:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Hague Conference of Private Int’l law:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Int’l Law and the Ozone Layer……………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Innovative things about the Vienna and Montréal Convention:……………………………………………………. 52
Black Market Issues:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
IV. Int’l Dispute Resolution………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
Trade Disputes & Investment Disputes………………………………………………………………………………… 54
Liberalizing trade, many people win, but Some people loose…………………………………………………….. 54
Regional Trade Liberalization:……………………………………………………………………………………………… 54
Dispute resolution:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
Loewen Group v. U.S. (2003)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57
Int’l Arbitration………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
What could be a defense: That it is not subject to Arbitration…………………………………………………….. 61
The way you approach the problem is as follows:……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61
V. Future of International Law………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
Internalizing Int’l Norms…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
What is international law and how is it made?…………………………………………………………………………. 63
.e.: murder is prohibited, not bc a statute says so, but bc reason dictates that if everyone murdered we would be in trouble
Natural is synonymous w/ customary law bc both embody the universal
Positivism: for something to be law it has to be issued by some authority capable for enforcing it.
Does not predict universality at all
Strengths and weakness of customary international law:
Strengths
Universality: It’s a composite of many or all countries not just one dictating
Time frame: it takes a long time to become custom. The time gives it a feel of wisdom.
Lack of formality: not made at one time w/ one test it goes on and on until it fits
Weakness
Time Frame: The length of time it takes for something to become custom is a problem when an issue needs immediate attention
Lack of clarity
Periods of transition: the custom is changing and the custom reflect that
Conflicting: Countries have to object by demonstrating their objection and that can lead to conflict
Purpose of international legal rule is meant to:
prosperity
Promote peace
Freedom
Int’l Instruments & Progressive Development
Class 3: DRW pp. 328-30 (Filartiga v. Pena Irala)
International Law Association (“ILA”), Committee on Formation of Customary International Law
(2000 London Conference Report) pp. 1-42. See Authors’ website, chapter 2.
Customary Int’l Law in the 20th Century:
The interests of states overlap and conflict more often.
Increasingly diplomacy takes place in public. This is tied in part to the telephone, newspapers. Not just the rise of technology but the rise of democracies. They insist on being informed. 2nd the way democracies insist on working. There are lots more statements
There is a huge increase in the number of states in the world by a factor of 3 or 4.
Increasingly after 1945 there was the growth of international orgs that states were a party.
The rise of the global corporation. Some are more wealthy/powerful than states
With the change in the world there is a pressure of customary law to change.
The Steamship Lotus Case (France v. Turkey) (1927) PCIJ:
a collision about a French and Turkish ships on the high seas. French ship slams into Turkish ship injuring the Turkish ship. Who has jurisdiction? Could Turkish authorities prosecute a Frenchman even though the French acted solely in French territories?
International law allows state to extend jurisdiction beyond their own state:
What universe of documents or action would you look too?
Scholarly work: that document incidents that have happened. It’s very particular what you get from them.
Judicial opinions: that do all the legwork for you. Must look to them critically. The evidence is what matters. If High courts have opinions that say that this is what customary law is at least in this state.
Acts of Big Corporations that have been Ratified by the State: The acts of corps by themselves do not count as the development of customary law unless it is adopted of ratified by a state. How does this happen? In treaty negotiations the head of the US delegation arranges for a presentation from an industry group and puts that forward as the US’s opinion.
Judicial Opinions: The higher the level the court the more prestigious and the more it counts.
Arbitrational Tribunal Opinions: is a fair data point evidence of what customary law would be. The problem with these is that they are never published. So those that are published are a very selected group.
NOT General Assembly Resolutions: Prompt, adequate, and effective
Several Standard put forward – the American standard
They aren’t customary Il because they are legislation. Essentially it may be a persuasive source to gather IL because it shows that 90 countries voted in favor of a particular decision.
NOT a particular person or corporation: does not by itself count on behalf of a state unless adopted or ratified by a state
Filaritga v. Pena-Irala 328
Courts must interpret Int’l law not as it was in 1789, but as it has evolved and exists among the nations of the world today.
Under the US Alien Tort Statute: the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations (aka customary Int’l law) or a treaty of the US.
Perfect test case because not many statutes tell a judge to apply the law of nations.
Was the torture and killing that happened in South America a violation of the law of nations?
Yes because torture committed under official authority is a violation of customary IL and therefore is actionable under the statute.
We are only looking for the practice of states interacting with other states.
What do you have to look at since in some countries murder is not illegal? Is there a lot of torture going on in the world and how often is it prosecuted?
What if what states say is different than what they do? Pay attention to what they do. That says more important.
was a landmark case in United States and international law. It set the precedent for United States federal courts to punish non-American citizens for tortious acts committed outside the United States that were in violation of public international law (the law of nations) or any treaties to which the United States is a party. It thus extends the jurisdiction of United States courts to tortious acts committed around the world. The case was decided by a panel of judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consisting of Judges Feinberg, Kaufman and Kearse.
Treaties
Categories of Treaties:
Contract Treaties: Many treaties are like K bargains both people going into something to get something reciprocity
Legislative Treaties: treaty to be fair to women, help educate them, it is not about reciprocity. Their purpose is to change global norms
Constitutive treaties: creates an apparatus or organizations that have an on going purpose, like the nuclear proliferation treaty, which creates the nuclear watch dog.
Treaties Defined By International Law
CLASS 4: DRW 35-51 the Cyprus conflict,
Vienna Convention, articles 2,3,67,8,42,51,52
