scholarly journals Prosper Weil's Article: A Stimulating Warning

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 72-76
Author(s):  
Pierre-Marie Dupuy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Technical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
International Level ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Jean Bodin ◽  
Auguste Comte ◽  
Droit International

Prosper Weil's article in the American Journal of International Law first appeared in 1982 in French in the Revue Générale de Droit International Public. In France, it has probably generated less debate than in the United States. Indeed, the positions taken by this stimulating, agile, and well-written article generally accord with the doctrinal tradition that largely predominates in the land of Jean Bodin, René Descartes, and Auguste Comte, namely, legal positivism. According to this tradition, legal scholars must first focus on the technical analysis of legal norms as they are set out and, above all, practiced by the various actors in legal relations, which on the international level are states and the international judge or arbitrator. After setting out the contexts of Weil's article, I shall state two reservations to its content and then turn to its contemporary relevance.

Medical immunity, international law and just war theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 165 (4) ◽  
pp. 256-265
Author(s):  
Fritz Allhoff ◽  
K Potts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Medical Personnel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Control Centre ◽  
Intentional Attack

Under customary international law, the First Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, medical personnel are protected against intentional attack. In § 1 of this paper, we survey these legal norms and situate them within the broader international humanitarian law framework. In § 2, we explore the historical and philosophical basis of medical immunity, both of which have been underexplored in the academic literature. In § 3, we analyse these norms as applied to an attack in Afghanistan (2015) by the United States; the United States was attempting to target a Taliban command-and-control centre but inadvertently destroyed a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital instead, killing 42 people. In § 4, we consider forfeiture of medical immunity and, more sceptically, whether supreme emergency could justify infringement of non-forfeited protected status.

scholarly journals The Long View on Kiobel: A muted Victory for International Legal norms in the United States?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 13-19
Author(s):  
Marco Basile
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. may be a Trojan horse. Observers who are sympathetic to the adjudication in U.S. courts of international legal norms—such as those against torture— have criticized the decision for limiting federal jurisdiction over human rights abuses abroad. Yet, despite this price, Kiobel might ultimately strengthen the foundation of international legal norms in U.S. courts. Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion, limiting the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) from reaching overseas, rested on the principle that one sovereign state should not usually apply its laws within the borders of another sovereign state, and that idea is a bedrock principle of international law. The majority avoided the connection to international law by dressing up the presumption against extraterritoriality in a foreign-policy rationale, but its argument does not square with the historical record, especially when it comes to piracy.

Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2006–7 / Jurisprudence canadienne en matière de droit international privé en 2006–7

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 563-605
Author(s):  
Joost Blom
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
New Brunswick ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Aircraft Engines ◽  
Droit International

The plaintiff, a New Brunswick company, maintained aircraft engines and often sent engines to the United States to be repaired by the original manufacturer or other repair facilities. The plaintiff contracted with the first defendant, a Canadian logistics operator, to handle the customs clearances. The first defendant often subcontracted the work to the second defendant, a United States logistics operator. When the plaintiff, under pressure from United States authorities, undertook a review of its compliance with United States customs laws, the defendants (so the plaintiff alleged) failed to provide sufficient or timely assistance, a default for which the plaintiff sued them in British Columbia. The first defendant was registered as an extraprovincial corporation in British Columbia, and so had appointed an agent for service there, but the second defendant applied to have the claim against it dismissed on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction. Jurisdiction depended on whether the claim had a real and substantial connection with the province as required by section 3(e) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 28. The chambers judge held that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring its claim with one or other of the categories of presumed real and substantial connection in section 10 of the act.

How May Tribunals Apply the Customary Necessity Rule to the Argentine Cases? An Analysis of ICSID Decisions with Respect to the Interaction between Article XI of the U.S.-Argentina BIT and the Customary Rule of Necessity

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
El-Hage Javier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Specific Focus ◽  
Argentine Republic ◽  
The Face ◽  
The U.S

This chapter addresses the question of why the nine decisions from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arising under the treaty between the United States of America and the Argentine Republic concerning the reciprocal encouragement and protection of investment have been so inconsistent in the face of largely undisputed facts and identical legal norms. It first sets forth, in abstract, a set of interpretive parameters and corresponding legal rationales that may be followed by tribunals when dealing with situations in which treaty and customary international law rules interact. It then analyzes each of the Argentine decisions according to the interaction rationales chosen by tribunals and committees, with a specific focus on the consistency of their own arguments for the application of the rule of necessity of customary international law.

The End of Empire and the Search for Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Linarelli ◽  
Margot E Salomon ◽  
Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Economic ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Order ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Neoliberal Ideology ◽  
First Time

This chapter is a study of the themes of the New International Economic Order (NIEO). It begins with the notion of justice that had been constructed in imperial law to justify empire and colonialism. The NIEO was the first time a prescription was made for justice in a global context not based on domination of one people over another. In its consideration of the emergence of a new notion of justice in international law, the chapter discusses the reasons for the origins of the NIEO, and goes on to describe the principles of the NIEO and the extent to which they came into conflict with dominant international law as accepted by the United States and European states. Next the chapter deals with the rise of the neoliberal ideology that led to the displacement of the NIEO and examines the issue of whether the NIEO and its ideals have passed or whether they continue to be or should be influential in international law. Finally, the chapter turns to the ideas of the NIEO alongside new efforts at promoting a fuller account of justice by which to justify and evaluate international law.

Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Karen Knop
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The U.S

The two starting points for this chapter are that fields of law are inventions, and that fields matter as analytical frames. All legal systems deal with foreign relations issues, but few have a field of “foreign relations law.” As the best-stocked cabinet of issues and ideas, U.S. foreign relations law would be likely to generate the field elsewhere in the process of comparison. But some scholars, particularly outside the United States, see the nationalist or sovereigntist strains of the U.S. field, and perhaps even just its use as a template, as demoting international law. The chapter begins by asking whether this apprehension can be alleviated by using international law or an existing comparative law field to inventory the foreign relations issues to be compared. Finding neither sufficient, it turns to the U.S. field as an initial frame and sketches three types of anxieties that the U.S. experience has raised or might raise for international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting how Campbell McLachlan’s allocative conception of foreign relations law might be adapted so as to turn such anxieties about international law into opportunities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document