School Work

NYU Law PIL Reviewer 2006

Public International Law
of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  International Law (Spring 2006)Professor David GoloveDamrosch, Henkin, Pugh, Schachter, Smit,  International Law , th !d I.I NTRODUCTION A.Overview # $ules governing the nature of relations %et&een states2 'rigins are more civilla&, rather than common la& focus on state practice and custom, not cases B.Historical Trends # *atural la& (+uinas, Grotius)   Positivism and reliance on state practice2 -ustomar. la& %ased on usage, customs, %ilateral treaties   /niversalmultilateral treaties1 -ultural unit. and universalist ideologies   Diversit. and differences utual coe3istence and restraint   -ooperative pro%lem solving i) 4eague of *ations, /*, 54', P-5, 5-7 $egulation of aliens (  jus gentium )   *ationstates (8reat. of 9estphalia)   $ise of glo%al organi:ations6 ;reedom to use force &conduct of &ar rules   <asic principle of nonuse of force= !ast9est divide   +fter -old 9ar *orthSouth divide> <alance of po&er   /S as onl. superpo&er  C.General Issues # 5s it 4a&? i)  *ot @ust ar%itrar. moralit., %ut focuses on rights, forms, and detailsa)4a&like features technical, te3t%ound, revisa%le, ar%itrar., and morall. neutral ii) Sovereignt.a)Positivist la& must %e command of sovereign %acked %. threat of a sanction %)<inding character voluntar. %ut gro&ing effectiveness as states accept limitations to their sovereignt.c)Aoluntarism legal rules are result of free &ill of states iii) <enefits deterrence, education, standardsetting, clarit. iv) 5ndicators of legitimac. determinac. and clarit., s.m%olic validation, coherence, adherence %et&een o%ligation and applica%le rules2 !nforcea%ilit. i) $ules cater to voluntar. compliance coercive, nonforci%le sanctionsB centrali:ed organs ii) Po&er d.namics often determine &hen la& gets enforced iii) 5rrelevant to states &ho &ill onl. follo& la& &hen it is in their interests or under another state ’ s po&er a)<asis of reciprocal o%ligationsB use of “ soft ”  la&sB national interest in supporting int ’ l rule of la& iv) $ealists uestion &h. states should and do follo& int ’ l la&a)$easons shortterm interest, fear of reciprocit., democratic respect for la& II.S OURCES   O  I NTERNATIONAL  L A! A.Custo ar# International Law  (la& of nations)# General and consistent practice of states out of a sense of legal o%ligation ( opinio juris )2 Purpose i) -reate s.stem of rules and reciprocities that &ill %e follo&ed %. states ii) 4egitimi:ing &orld opinions1 $elation to 8reaties i)  *o& seen as interstitial default rules &ith the rise of multilateral treaties ii) a. allo& treat. provisions to %e %inding even on nonsignatories iii) ore responsive than treaties and conferences to less po&erful states and individual circumstances -reation -r.stalli:ationB 9idespread ratification of treat. %. all relevant statesB /* G + Declarations7 8ermination $ule e3ists until it is replaced %. opnio juris 6 -ustomar. international la& is part of domestic la& and can %e determined %. state practice ( The Paquete  Habana  /S court ruled that fishing vessels are e3empt from %eing pri:es of &ar)= Since customar. int ’ l la& is %ased on consent, restrictions cannot %e presumed ( S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Tur.)  8urke. needs not affirmativel. sho& universal rule supporting their @urisdiction %ased on territorialit.) i) Presumption of freedom is used to fill in gaps in a customar. int ’ l la& that ma. %e incomplete ii) ;rance had acuiesced to concurrent @urisdiction over ships %ased on the effects doctrine  a)+ffirmative steps needed to avoid acuiescence or tacit consent#)5ssues ignorance?, seriousness of act needed?, ne& states?, ma@orit. rule?, offering a prete3t &ill affirm the rule?, &hen is consensus reached? %)$ationale for consent sovereignt. %asisB pragmatic approach of enforcea%ilit. iii) Speciall. affected states need to consent specificall. to customar. restrictions> -ustomar. international la& reuires a consensus (  Legality o the Threat or !se o u#lear $eapons (%&visory 'pinion)  no authori:ation or prohi%ition, %ut an. use &ould pro%a%l. violate other rules of humanitarian la& and neutralit. principle of distinction, of no unnecessar. suffering v deterrence and selfdefense) i) 8reaties seem to ackno&ledge useB nonutili:ation isn ’ t necessaril. opinio juris B also negative votes to General +ssem%l. resolutions ii) onliquet   evidence does not clearl. resolve the issue, so court refuses to engage in la&creation iii) $egional customar. international la& is %ased more strictl. on consent (  %sylum ase (ol. v. Peru)  no constant and uniform usage or opinio juris )a)Persistent o%@ector either sho&s lack of consent or keeps rule form %ecoming la&#)Does not include peremptor. norms (  jus #ogens   –  can onl. %e modified %. ne&  jus #ogens )C 'pinio juris  means settled practice and evidence of a %elief that the practice is o%ligated (   orth Sea ontinental Shel (*er. v. +en., eth.)  !uidistance principle under Geneva -onvention &as not customar. la&) i) 8reat. principles can gain opinio juris  through a state ’ s attitudepractice (  Paramilitary %#tivities ( i#ar.v. !S)  /S reservation to 5- @urisdiction does not appl. to similar customar. la& principles) B.Treaties  (%ased on  pa#ta sunt servan&a )# 5ntroduction i) Priorit. over other sources, %ut courts should look to specific la& %efore general ii) 4ook at intention of parties, must %e terminated intentionall.2 -lasses General multilateralB -olla%orative mechanismsB <ilateral1 $elation to customar. international la& i) +dvantages rational processB includes ne& statesB strengthen e3isting customar. la&B more authorit. ii) 8reat. %ecomes customar. if it is declarator. of pree3isting custom, cr.stalli:es customar. la&, or generates ne& customar. la& 8.pes i) -odification 8reaties –  s.stemi:ation %ased on practice, precedent, and doctrine ii) Progressive Development 8reaties –  la&making C.General $rinci%les o& Law and E'uit# # -ommon principles in all municipal la& s.stems (often technical or procedural in nature)B valid in all societies %. the nature of man (minimum standards of @ustice and decenc.,  jus rationale ) i)  *ot %ased on state consent so might %e read narro&l. e3cept for human rights principles2 +lso principles inherent to nature of international la& s.stem  pa#ta sunt servan&a , sovereign eualit. D.Evidence o& Law (Su%sidiar. sources)# -ourt Decisions i) 5- Declarator. of la&, no stare decisis, discretionar. decisions ii) 'ther int ’ l or speciali:ed courts iii) unicipal courts used as evidence of state practice or opinio juris 2 9ritings of ualified Pu%licists –  onl. persuasive ( -ouse  )1 Declarations and $esolutions can %ecome customar. int ’ l la& through e3pectation of adherence opinio juris (  Filartiga v. PenaIrala  deli%erate torture violated international la&) i) State practice ma. differ from G + resolutionsB usuall. evidence of la& rather than la& itself  ii) $esolutions are political declarations, not codification or progressive development ( Tea#o v. Libya  later resolutions &ere passed &ithout the support of 9estern market econom. nations, so earlier rule not replaced)a)  +e lege eren&a  &hat the la& ought to %e v  #ontra legem  against the la&  “ Soft ”  la& voluntar. codesguidelinesB international standards, rules of nongovernmental %odiesB politicaldeclarations III.I NTERNATIONAL  L A!  ( ) UNICI$AL  L A! A.Introduction # 5nternational la& does not replace municipal la& %ut is %inding on state i) unicipal la& cannot %e used as a defense for noncompliance2 onism v Dualism  i) Dualism separate s.stems &here international la& must %e incorporated into municipal la& to the e3tent that it is consistent &ith constitution ii) onism single s.stem &here international la& is higher than municipal la& in hierarch. of legal norms B.International Law as U.S. Law (customar.)# Seen as federal uestion (treaties) or federal common la& (customar. international la&) i) -onstitution gives -ongress po&er to define and punish offenses against the la& of nations ii) ;ederal government is %etter decider than individual states and Supreme -ourt is final authorit. iii) President might %e a%le to disregard international la& under the -onstitutiona)!3ecutive <ranch receives great &eightdeference and situations ma. lead to “ controlling e3ecutive acts ”  or political uestions2 -ustomar. international la& realisticall. su%@ect to -onstitution and other legislation, even if it shouldn ’ t %e i) $elationship &ith treaties is according to 4ast in 8ime rule1 +ct of State doctrine is domestic rule of @udicial selfrestraint to not @udge another state ’ s acts in its o&n territor. i) $ationale is to leave foreign affairs for !3ecutive %ranch (  /an#o a#ional &e uba v. Sabbatino  -u%a nationali:ed companies in retaliation and possi%l. violation of international la&) ii) an. e3ceptions unrecogni:ed government, treaties, unam%iguous customar. principles, counterclaims, e3traterritorial act, private acts, %ri%er., human rights issues iii) Second Hickenlooper +mendment presumption that doctrine doesn ’ t appl. if act is a violation of international la& unless !3ecutive <ranch intervenes C.Incor%oration o& Treaties into U.S. Law # 8reaties made %. President under -onstitutionB no reuirement of consent %. individual states i) Senate gives consent not ratification (technical term)B limits scope of consent, and not reservations2 8reaties are su%@ect to -onstitutional limitations i) ;ederalism means treaties can override transitor. state interests for a national interest (  0issouri v.  Hollan&   igrator. <ird 8reat. act limited hunting)a)$ationale collective %argaining %. central gov ’ tB local governments should not make treaties %)4ook at “ invisi%le radiations ”  from the #0 th  +mendment ii) Scope not limited %. -ongressional po&er, onl. %. issues regarding separation of po&ers1 *onselfe3ecuting treaties must still %e e3ecuted %. legislature (  Foster 1 2lam v. eilson  land grants must  %e confirmed %. -ongress) i) Selfe3ecuting treaties o%ligations to refrain from actingB presumption against defaulting on o%ligations ii)  *onselfe3ecuting infringements on e3clusive -ongressional po&ers (mone.)B criminal penalties must have due processB trend ma. %e to presume nonselfe3ecutionB usuall. no private rights of action iii) Determination is solel. %. the /nited Statesa)4ook to intentions of President-ongress –  did the. intend domestic courts to enforce treat.? %)Polic. reasons allo& for more democratic process &ith House v stick to -onstitution? 4astintime rule applies for later statutes or treaties that are inconsistentB ho&ever, treat. o%ligations remain ( $hitney v. 3obertson  treat. limiting duties from Dom $ep &as not relevant to trade &ith Ha&aii) i) Aienna -onvention on -onsular $elations doesn ’ t provide foreign state &ith private right of action and allo&s for procedural rules of forum state to govern implementation (  /rear& v. *reene4 Para. v. *ilmore  /S failed to inform E of his right to notif. consulate, %ut E procedurall. defaulted on his claim %ecause of +!DP+ that &as passed after -onvention)a)Supreme -ourt cannot enforce 5- orders7 harming /etsy  canon that statutes should %e construed to avoid violating the la& of nations 6 8ermination of treaties must %e done %. !3ecutive %ranch ( harlton v. 5elly  violation of treat. %. other nations doesn ’ t automaticall. void the treat. %ecause it is a political decision) D.Ot*er A+ree ents # -ongressional!3ecutive +greements –  most are approved %. -ongress e3 anteB not -onstitutional %ut assures e3ecution and involvement %. %oth House and Senate2 Sole !3ecutive +greements –  !3ecutive has po&er to conduct foreign relations, %ut -ase +ct reuires  presentation of agreements to -ongress i) 5nternational -ompacts cannot %e overruled %. state la&s ( !S v. /elmont   *ationali:ation of claims o&ed  %. $ussia)a)!3ecutive has po&er to recogni:e nations and create relevant polic. ( !.S. v. Pin6  ) ii) Selfe3ecutingB also follo&s 4astin8ime rule  E.Terroris Cases # +8S is a @urisdictional statute that onl. allo&s private right of action for violations of safe conduct, actions against am%assadors, and pirac. +n. ne& right of action must %e determined &ith great caution given ne& role of common la& and limited role of courts -ustomar. international la& does not support private right for ar%itrar. arrest ( Sosa v. %lvare70a#hain ) i) $ationale of incorporating int ’ l la& into municipal la& dut. to uphold %inding la&s, valua%le norms, signaling2 -iti:endetainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enem. com%atant must receive notice of the factual %asis for his classification, and a fair opportunit. to re%ut the Gov ’ t ’ s factual assertion %efore a neutral decisionmaker /S authori:ed to detain citi:ens %. +/; during time of active hostilities for preventative detention, so *onDetainee +ct doesn ’ t appl. Due Process reuires  0atthew  %alancing test (  Ham&i v.  3umsel&  ) i) 4a&s of &ar and Geneva -onvention used as a limit of e3ecutive po&er  ii) ilitar. 8ri%unal allo&ed to decide status as enem. com%atant +/; allo&s militar. commissions, Geneva -onvention has no private right of action and does not appl. to +l aeda, militar. has @urisdiction, /- doesn ’ t appl., and tri%unal is competent (  Ham&an v. 3umsel&  )1 Ha%eas petitions allo&ed for detainees at Guantanamo since it operates on custodian and %ase is under  plenar. and e3clusive @urisdiction of /S (  3asul v. /ush ) I,.L A!   O  T REATIES A.De&inition # Aienna -onvention on 4a& of 8reaties as authoritative guide although not ratified %. /S i) -overs &ritten agreements %et&een statesB nonretroactiveB mostl. regarded as customar. int ’ l la& ii) /S had reservations to +rticle 6 &hich &ould allo& President to enter treaties &ithout Senate approval2 8reat. must %ind t&o or more su%@ects of international la& and governed %. international la& (produce legal effects or o%ligations) in its formation and e3ecutionB look at intention of parties i) !3press statement needed to rel. on private la&1 /nilateral acts can also lead to o%ligations (  2astern *reenlan& ( or. v. +en.) B   u#lear Tests ase (%us. 1   .8. v. Fra.)  look at goodfaith intention of state even &ithout reaction from other states) i) Dependent on factual circumstances and availa%le alternatives (  Frontier +ispute ase (/.F. v. 0ali) ) ii) Difference from contracts *o reuirement of consideration  *on%inding agreements are declining –  still ma. create e3pectations of compliance, politicalmoral o%ligation i) a. %e used for political reasons or to avoid the ratification process B.Reservations # /nilateral statement e3cluding or legal effect of certain treat. provisions2 <alance state sovereignt. and consent v integrit. and purpose of the treat. (  3eservations to the onvention on *eno#i&e  intent for as man. states to @oin as possi%le) i) Permissi%ilit. 4ook to the compati%ilit. of the reservation &ith the o%@ectpurpose of the -onvention ii) States @udge compati%ilit. for themselves to see if reserving part. is still %ound %. the -onvention iii) 'pposa%ilit. polic. decision on a permissi%le reservation1 $eservations ma. not %e allo&ed, %ut onl. declarations (/ * -onvention on the 4a& of the Sea) $eservations rare e3cept in human rights treaties i) Human $ights -ommittee &ill decide compati%ilit. since states have no vested interest in doing so C.O-servance #  Pa#ta sunt servan&a  and good faith to perform and reali:e purpose of treat.2 -onstitutional la& can onl. %e invoked if consent &as in violation of constitution D.Inter%retation # /nilateral interpretation is not %inding on other parties (  9esse Lewis laim (!S v. */)  8ri%unal can determine if purchasing fresh %ait &as violation of treat.) i) 5nterpretations should %e contested to avoid acuiescence ii) +uthentic interpretations might %e amendments or additional clauses2 Travau preparatoires  is supplementar. %ut looked at simultaneousl. &ith ordinar. meaning taken in conte3t of o%@ectpurposeetc i)2n#ir#lement progressi   process of interpretation &ill onl. use intentions for special meanings ii) Su%seuent conduct ma. %e more relia%le than preparator. &ork, %ut it must %e kno&n to all parties and  %. a competent part. ( ase on#erning 5asi6ili,Se&u&u Islan&  )
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks