Abstract
In classic international law doctrine custom is an independent source of authority. A state seeking legal justification for its act may rely not only upon a treaty such as the UN Charter but also upon what states actually do and have done. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice lists the sources of authority that the Court is to apply in deciding disputes under international law. Listed second, after treaties is “international custom, as evidence of general practice accepted as law.” Under traditional doctrine, a practice need not be universally followed to qualify as custom; it need merely be generally and consistently practiced by a representative group of states capable of participating in the practice. And, in classic doctrine, to qualify as custom, practice must be backed by opinia juris sive necessitatis—the belief of states that the practice is pursued as a matter of legal right or obligation, not mere comity or convenience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G. v. Den.), 1969 I.C.J. Rep. 3, 44 (Feb. 20).
Josef Kunz, “The Nature of Customary International Law,” 47 Am. J. Int’l L. 662, 667 (1953).
This argument was actually advanced by the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State. See Memorandum, R. B. Owen, quoted in Nash, “Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law,” 74 Am. J. Int’l L. 418, 418–20 (1980). See also
Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression, and Self-Defense 98–103 (1988).
Oscar Schachter, “International Law in Theory and Practice: General Course in Public International Law,” 178 Recueil des Cours 9 (1982).
Hans Kelsen, “The Pure Theory of Law” (1934), reprinted in Louis Henkin et al., International Law: Cases and Materials 20 (1993).
Egon Schwelb, “Some Aspects of International jus cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission,” 61 Am. J. Int’l L. 946 (1967).
Mark W. Janis, An Introduction to International Law 53 (1988).
Edward McWhinney, United Nations Law Making: Cultural and Ideological Relativism and International Law Making for an Era of Transition 74 (1984).
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art. 53, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 344.
See generally Marjorie Whiteman, “Jus Cogens in International Law,” Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 609 (1977).
Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 102 reporters’ note 6.
Theodor Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law 51 n. 133 (1989).
See generally I. C. MacGibbon, “The Scope of Acquiescence in International Law,” 31 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 143 (1954).
Louis Henkin, “Use of Force: Law and U.S. Policy,” in Louis Henkin et al., Right v. Might: International Law and the Use of Force 53 (2d ed. 1991).
Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicar. vs. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 14, 98 (June 27).
See Thomas M. Franck, “Sidelined in Kosovo? The United Nations’ Demise Has Been Exaggerated; Break It, Don’t Fake It,” Foreign Affairs 116 (July/Aug. 1999).
Oscar Schachter, “The Right of States to Use Armed Force,” 82 Mich. L. Rev. 1620, 1621 (1984).
J. L. Briefly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace 69–70 (Humphrey Waldock ed., 6th ed. 1963).
Oscar Schachter, “In Defense of International Rules on the Use of Force,” 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 113, 119 (1986).
Arthur M. Weisburd, “Customary International Law: The Problem of Treaties,” 21 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1, 33 (1988).
Interview with Tony Blair, U.K. Prime Minister, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer: (PBS television broadcast, Apr. 23, 1999).
Abraham D. Sofaer, “International Law and Kosovo,” 36 Stan. J. Int’l L. 1, 7 (2000).
A. Mark Weisburd, Use of Force: The Practice of States Since World War II, at 23 (1997).
Anthony D’Amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law 35 (1971).
Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave 2–3 (2d ed. 1979).
Anthony D’Amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law 73 (1971).
Oscar Schachter, “In Defense of International Rules on the Use of Force,” 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 113, 130 (1986).
Id. at 130–31.
Anthony D’Amato, “Trashing Customary International Law,” 81 Am. J. Int’l L. 101, 105 (1987).
Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave 129 (1968).
See, for example, Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes, The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements (1995);
Thomas M. Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (1995);
Harold Hongju Koh, “Why Do Nations Obey International Law?” 106 Yale L.J. 2599 (1997).
Michael Howard, The Lessons of History 11 (1991).
J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace 72 (Humphrey Waldock ed., 6th ed. 1963).
Louis Henkin, “The Use of Force: Law and U.S. Policy” in Louis Henkin et al., Right v. Might: International Law and the Use of Force 53 (2d ed. 1991).
Id.
See generally Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner, “A Theory of Customary International Law,” 66 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1113 (1999);
Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner, “Understanding the Resemblance Between Modern and Traditional Customary International Law,” 40 Va. J. Intl L. 639 (2000) (arguing that behavioral regularities called customary international law in fact reflect coincidence of interest or coercion, and thus lack normative import).
Jack A. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner, “Understanding the Resemblance between Modern and Traditional Customary International Law,” 40 Va. J. Int’l L. 639, 655 (2000).
Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner, “A Theory of Customary International Law,” 66 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1113, 1150 (1999).
Anthony D’Amato, “Trashing Customary International Law,” 81 Am. J. Int’l L. 101, 102 (1987).
Thomas M. Franck, “Some Observations on the I.C.J.’s Procedural and Substantive Innovations,” 81 Am. J. Int’l L. 116, 118–19 (1987).
Anthony D’Amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law 81 (1971).
Id. at 84.
Quoted in Oscar Schachter, “Sovereignty and Threats to Peace,” in Collective Security in a Changing World 29 (Thomas G. Weiss ed., 1993).
Oscar Schachter, “In Defense of International Rules on the Use of Force,” 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 113, 131 (1986).
Thalif Deen, “Politics: Humanitarian Intervention Remains a Divisive Issue,” Inter Press Service, Mar. 9, 2000.
J. Patrick Kelly, “The Twilight of Customary International Law,” 40 Va. J. Int’l. L. 470, 473 (2000).
Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave 334 (2d ed. 1979).
Id. at 146.
Id. at 320.
Id.
Id. at 148
Id. at 320.
Id. at 331.
Louis Henkin, “The Reports of the Death of Article 2(4) Are Greatly Exaggerated,” 65 Am. J. Int’l L. 544, 547 (1971).
W. W. Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law: From Augustus to Justinian 52 (3d ed. 1966).
Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State 119 (Anders Wedberg trans., 1949).
H. F. Jolowicz and Barry Nicholas, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law 353–55 (3d ed. 1972).
Alexander M. Bickel, The Morality of Consent 107–08 (1975).
William Bishop, “General Course of Public International Law,” 1965, 115 Recueil des Cours 151, 227 (1965).
Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave 306 (2d ed. 1979).
Daniel Bodansky, “Non Liquet and the Rule of Law,” in International Law at the Close of the 20th Century: The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion 154 (Philippe Sands and Laurence Boisson de Chazournes eds., 2000).
Id. at 164.
Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law 440 (Robert W. Tucker ed., 2d ed. 1966).
Alexander M. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 103 (2d ed. 1986).
A. Mark Weisburd, Use of Force: The Practice of States Since World War II 24 (1997).
See J. Patrick Kelly, “The Twilight of Customary International Law,” 40 Va. J. Int’l. L. 449, 486 (2000);
Daniel Bodansky, “Customary (and Not So Customary) International Environmental Law,” 3 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 105, 111 (1995) (arguing that state practice and international environmental norms diverge).
Letter of Conrad K. Harper, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, to Francisco Jose Aguilar-Urbina, Chairman, Human Rights Committee, quoted in Richard B. Lillich, “Introduction: The Growing Importance of Customary International Human Rights Law,” 25 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 1, 20 n. 101 (1996).
Copyright information
© 2001 Michael J. Glennon
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Glennon, M.J. (2001). The Effect of State Practice on the Charter. In: Limits of Law, Prerogatives of Power. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403982537_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403982537_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-38677-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-8253-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)