scholarly journals The International Law Standard in Statutes of the United States

1951 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 732-740
Author(s):  
Robert R. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
To Receive

The relation of municipal law to international law is properly a subject of inquiry by both practitioners and theoreticians. That all the questions which arise in this connection have not been settled will appear from continuing discussions concerning monism and dualism, the concept of domestic jurisdiction questions, and the doctrine of self-executing treaties. Cases of clear conflict between national law in the form of statutes and that which comprises international obligations tend to receive much publicity, and properly so. The extent to which there has been conformity of national legislation to customary international law and treaties seems to have received less attention. Techniques used to secure such conformity will appear to some extent from the manner in which statute-makers have by express provisions taken cognizance of the law of nations in written or unwritten form.

Neutrality Laws of the United States

1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Dumbauld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Government ◽  
Foreign Government ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Joint State

The so-called “neutrality laws” of the United States are statutory provisions, a part of the penal law of the United States, and should be clearly distinguished from the obligations imposed upon the United States by interyt national law. They may be regarded as an instance of the enforcement of international law by municipal law in the United States, and originated in the endeavors of the administration of President Washington to discharge the duties owed by the American Government as a neutral nation during the war between England and France in 1793. They punish criminally the commission of acts forbidden by the law of nations. As was well said by the Joint State and Navy Neutrality Board in 1916, “The doer of the wrongful act is accountable only to the United States, while the United States is itself accountable to a foreign government for the commission of the act. In this respect the neutrality laws differ from ordinary penal statutes, because the prohibited acts affect the international relations of the United States in addition to any effect they may have upon domestic tranquillity and order.”

Asylum at Sea: The Legality of Shipboard Refugee Status Determination Procedures

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Azadeh Dastyari ◽  
Daniel Ghezelbash
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
State Practice ◽  
International Obligations

Abstract Austria and Italy have recently proposed that processing the protection claims of asylum seekers attempting to cross the Mediterranean should take place aboard government vessels at sea. Shipboard processing of asylum claims is not a novel idea. The policy has been used for many years by the governments of the United States and Australia. This article examines the relevant international law, as well as State practice and domestic jurisprudence in the United States and Australia, to explore whether shipboard processing complies with international refugee and human rights law. It concludes that, while it may be theoretically possible for shipboard processing to comply with international law, there are significant practical impediments to carrying out shipboard processing in a manner that is compliant with the international obligations of States. Current practices in the United States and Australia fall short of what is required. Nor is there any indication that the Austrian/Italian proposal would contain the required safeguards. It is argued that this is by design. The appeal of shipboard processing for governments is that it allows them to dispense with the safeguards that asylum seekers would be entitled to if processed on land. Best practice is for all persons interdicted or rescued at sea to be transferred to a location on land where they have access to effective status determination procedures and are protected from refoulement and unlawful detention.

International Law in the American Courts – Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd.: The Decision Heard ‘Round the Corporate World

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Hutchens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Corporate World ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
National Bank ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

On June 30, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Filártiga v. Peña-Irala. In this landmark case, the Paraguayan plaintiffs sought to hold Americo Norbeto Peña-Irala, a high-ranking Paraguayan police officer, liable for torture that led to the death of Joel Filártiga in Paraguay. They rested their main jurisdictional argument “upon the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which provides: ‘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 or a treaty of the United States.'” The Second Circuit held, “[D]eliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality of the parties. Thus, whenever an alleged torturer is found and served with process by an alien within our borders, § 1350 provides federal jurisdiction.” It added that “Our holding today, giving effect to a jurisdictional provision enacted by our First Congress, is a small but important step in the fulfillment of the ageless dream to free all people from brutal violence.”

The World Court and Jus Cogens

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon A. Christenson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
United Nations Charter

In the merits phase of decision in the case brought by Nicaragua against the United States, the World Court briefly mentions references by states or publicists to the concept of jus cogens. These expressions are used to buttress the Court’s conclusion that the principle prohibiting the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is also a rule of customary international law.

United States v. Dire

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 644-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Kontorovich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The World ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

In the first criminal piracy decision by a United States court in nearly a century, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the federal piracy statute’s reference to the “law of nations” explicitly ties the scope of the offense to evolving customary international law definitions of the crime. The court went on to find that under current customary and treaty law, attempted piracy falls within the scope of the international crime. In doing so, it joined several courts in nations around the world that have confronted the issue as a result of the outbreak of Somali piracy that began in 2008.

scholarly journals AKIBAT HUKUM PERATIFIKASIAN PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL DI INDONESIA: STUDI KASUS KONVENSI PALERMO 2000

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Indonesian Government ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Legal Consequences

<p><strong><em>A</em></strong><strong><em>bstract</em></strong><strong><em></em></strong></p><p><em>Ratification in</em><em> Indonesia does not have any legal consequences for the application of the treaties at national level.  The reason is that ratification only binds Indonesia as a subject of international law. In comparison, parliamentary approval in the Indonesian context is not the same as the United States Senate’s approval. </em><em>The Indonesian Government signed the Palermo Convention on December 12, 2000 and ratified it on April 20, 2009. The issue discussed here regards the legal status of this Convention.  In the 80’s it was assumed that any treaties ratified or acceded, would ipso facto be enforceable in Indonesia. I argued that Indonesia should be regarded as a state applying the monist approach, which legal practice seems to reject.  I stand for the monist approach especially with regard to the legal status of the 2000 Palermo Convention. In addition I also argue about the importance of differentiating between Indonesia’s international obligations and the issue of direct applicaton of the Convention by national couts.</em></p><p> </p><p align="right"><strong><em>Keywords: </em></strong><strong><em></em></strong></p><em>Ratification, Integration, Implementation, Treaty, Indonesia’s legal system</em>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document