Advertisement

Methods of Identification of International Custom: A New Role for Opinio Juris?

  • Hanna BourgeoisEmail author
  • Jan Wouters
Chapter

Abstract

Over the past few years, numerous authors have articulated alternative methods for identifying rules of customary international law in those branches of international law which reflect moral considerations and are often characterised by strong opinio juris, but inconsistent State practice or even a lack of actual State practice. They generally consider the traditional method of customary law formation and identification inappropriate since it requires both consistent State practice and, in rather subordinate order, opinio juris. In 2012, the International Law Commission (ILC) eventually decided to place the topic of formation and identification of customary international law on the agenda and appointed Sir Michael Wood Special Rapporteur for the topic (Special Rapporteur). Between 2013 and 2016, the Special Rapporteur issued four reports and sixteen draft conclusions on the identification of customary international, which were subsequently commented upon by the ILC’s drafting committee. Some have criticised the ILC for taking a very classical State-centred approach to customary international law by reinforcing the central role of States in the formation of customary international law and by applying the traditional test of both consistent practice and opinio juris. This chapter argues that the ILC has left more room than one may think at first sight for a method that may further humanitarian and ethical interests without compromising on the unity and coherence of international law. Thereto, this chapter seeks to redefine the role of opinio juris in the identification of customary international law and to reconsider its relationship with practice, while simultaneously demonstrating how such an approach falls within the boundaries set out by the ILC.

References

  1. Akehurst M (1974) Custom as a source of international law. Br Yearb Int Law 47:1–53Google Scholar
  2. Arajärvi N (2017) The Requisite Rigour in the identification of customary international law: a look at the reports of the special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission. Int Community Law Rev 19:9–46.  https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhardt R (1987) Principles and characteristics of customary international law. In: Collected courses of The Hague Academy of International Law. The Hague Academy of International Law, p 247Google Scholar
  4. Blokker N (2017) International organizations and customary international law. Int Organ Law Rev 14:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15723747-01401001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boas G (2012) Public international law: contemporary principles and perspectives. Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brierly JL, Clapham A (2012) Brierly’s law of nations: an introduction to the role of international law in international relations, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Byers M (1999) Custom, power, and the power of rules: international relations and customary international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassese A (2005) International law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng B (1965) United Nations resolutions on outer space: ‘Instant’ international customary law? Indian J Int Law 5:23Google Scholar
  10. Childress DE (2012) The role of ethics in international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen HG (2012) Fragmentation to constitutionalization, presented at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Symposium on the global impact and implementation of human rights norms. Pac McGeorge Glob Bus Dev Law J 25:381–394Google Scholar
  12. D’Amato AA (1969) The concept of special custom in international law. Am J Int Law 63:211–223.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2197411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. d’Aspremont J (2015) The Decay of Modern Customary International Law in Spite of Scholarly Heroism. Glob Community Yearb Int Law Jurisprud Amst Cent Int Law No 2016-08 Amst Law Sch Res Pap No 2016-18Google Scholar
  14. Dahlman C (2012) The function of opinio juris in customary international law. Nord J Int Law 81:327–339.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08103002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deplano R (2017) Assessing the role of resolutions in the ILC draft conclusions on identification of customary international law. Int Organ Law Rev 14:227–253.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15723747-2017002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flauss J-F (1998) La protection des droits de l’homme et les sources du droit international. In: Société française pour le droit international. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Fonte J (2011) Sovereignty or submission: will Americans rule themselves or be ruled by others? Encounter Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Frulli M (2015) The contribution of international criminal tribunals to the development of international law: the prominence of opinio juris and the moralization of customary law. Law Pract Int Courts Trib 14:80–93.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldsmith JL, Posner EA (2005) The limits of international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Guzman AT (2005) Saving customary international law. Mich J Int Law Ann Arbor 27:115–176Google Scholar
  21. Henckaerts J-M (2007) Customary international humanitarian law: a response to US comments. Int Rev Red Cross 89:473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005) ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, vol I: rules. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Henkin L (1995a) Human rights and state sovereignty Sibley lecture/keynote address. Ga J Int Comp Law 25:31–46Google Scholar
  24. Henkin L (1995b) International law: politics and values. Martinus Nijhoff, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Jennings RY (1981) What is international law and how do we tell it when we see it? Annu Suisse Droit Int 37:59–91Google Scholar
  26. Kirgis FL (1987) Custom on a sliding scale. Am J Int Law 81:146–151.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2202144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolb R (2003) Selected problems in the theory of customary international law. Neth Int Law Rev 50:119–150.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X03001190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lepard BD (2010) Customary international law: a new theory with practical applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Lillich R (1996) The growing importance of customary international human rights law. Ga J Int Comp Law 25:1–30Google Scholar
  30. Macedo S (ed) (2004) Universal jurisdiction. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Mandsager D (2007) U.S. Joint Letter from John Bellinger III, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, and William J. Haynes, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense to Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, President, International Committee of the Red Cross, Regarding Customary International Law Study. Int Leg Mater 46:514–531Google Scholar
  32. Mathias S (2016) The work of the International Law Commission on identification of customary international law: a view from the perspective of the office of legal affairs. Chin J Int Law 15:17–31.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmv054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meron T (1989) Human rights and humanitarian norms as customary law. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Meron T (2005) Revival of customary humanitarian law. Am J Int Law Wash 99:817–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meron T (2011) The making of international criminal justice: a view from the bench: selected speeches. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Mettraux G (2005) International crimes and the ad hoc tribunals. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Müllerson R (1998) The interplay of objective and subjective element in customary law. In: Suy E, Wellens K (eds) International law: theory and practice: essays in honour of Eric Suy. Martinus Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy SD (2015) Identification of customary international law and other topics: the sixty-seventh session of the International Law Commission. Am J Int Law Wash 109:822–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nolte G (2017) The International Law Commission and community interests, KFG Working Paper Series No. 7, Berlin Potsdam Research Group “The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline?”, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. Odermatt J (2017) The development of customary international law by international organizations. Int Comp Law Q 66:491–511.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589317000112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parks WH (2005) The ICRC customary law study: a preliminary assessment. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Int Law 99:208–212Google Scholar
  42. Reisman M (1981) International law-making: a process of communication. Am Soc Int Law Proc 75:101–120Google Scholar
  43. Roberts AE (2001) Traditional and modern approaches to customary international law: A reconciliation. Am J Int Law Wash 95:757–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schabas W (2009) Customary law or judge-made law: Judicial creativity at the UN criminal tribunals. In: Bassiouni MC, Doria J, Gasser H-P (eds) The legal regime of the International Criminal Court. Brill, pp 75–102Google Scholar
  45. Schachter O (1982) International law in theory and practice: general course in public international law. Recl Cours Académie Droit Int 178:21–395Google Scholar
  46. Schachter O (1991) International law in theory and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  47. Schachter O (1996) New custom: power, opinio juris and contrary pracatice. In: Makarczyk J (ed) Theory of international law at the threshold of the 21st century: essays in honour of Krzysztof Skubiszewski. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 531Google Scholar
  48. Shaw MN (2014) International law, 7th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Simma B, Alston P (1992) The sources of human rights law: custom, jus cogens and general principles. Aust Yearb Int Law 12:82–108Google Scholar
  50. Simma B, Paulus AL (1999) The responsibility of individuals for human rights abuses in internal conflicts: a positivist view. Am J Int Law Wash 93:302–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tasioulas J (2007) Opinio juris and the genesis of custom: a solution to the Paradox comment. Aust Yearb Int Law 26:199–206Google Scholar
  52. Thirlway H (1972) International customary law and codification; an examination of the continuing role of custom in the present period of codification of international law. A.W. Sijthoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  53. Thirlway H (2014) The sources of international law, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Thirlway H (2015) Human rights in customary law: an attempt to define some of the issues. LJIL 28:495–506.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156515000266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Villiger ME (1997) Customary international law and treaties: a manual on the theory and practice of the interrelation of sources, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  56. Wessel RA (2016) The Meso level: means of interaction between EU and international law: flipping the question: the reception of EU law in the international legal order. Yearb Eur Law 35:533–561.  https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yew019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wood SM (2016) Editorial comments: the present position within the ILC on the topic “Identification of customary international law”: in partial response to Sienho Yee, Report on the ILC Project on “Identification of Customary International Law”. Chin J Int Law 15:3–15.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmv056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Worster WT (2013) The inductive and deductive methods in customary international law analysis: traditional and modern approaches. Georgetown J Int Law 45:445–522Google Scholar
  59. Wouters J, Ryngaert C (2009) Impact on the process of the formation of customary international law. In: Kamminga MT, Scheinin M (eds) The impact of human rights law on general international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yee S (2015) Report on the ILC Project on “Identification of Customary International Law” Chin J Int Law 14:375–398. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmv022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) and Leuven Centre for Global Governance StudiesLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Institute for International Law, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations