Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:07:18.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of Customary International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 1953 , pp. 662 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Corfu Channel Case (Merits), April 9, 1949, I.C.J. Eeports, 1949, p. 4; this Journal, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 558.

2 Reservations to Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion, May 28, 1951, I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 15; this Journal, Vol. 45 (1951), p. 579; Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, December 18, 1951, I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 116; this Journal, Vol. 46 (1952), p. 348.

3 Asylum Case, November 20, 1950, I.C.J. Reports, 1950, p. 266; this Journal, Vol. 45 (1951), p. 179.

4 See W. W. Cox, “Reservations to Multipartite Conventions,” Proceedings, American Society of International Law, 1952, pp. 26–35; Fitzmaurice, G. G., “Reservations to Multilateral Conventions,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1953), pp. 1–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnson, D. H. N., “The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,” ibid., Vol. 1 (1952), pp. 145–180 Google Scholar; Evensen, Jens, “The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case and Its Legal Consequences,” this Journal , Vol. 46 (1952), pp. 609–630 Google Scholar; Waldock, C. H. M., “The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 28 (1951), pp. 114–171 Google Scholar; Evans, A. E., “The Columbian-Peruvian Asylum Case,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 46 (1952), pp. 142–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barcia Trelles, C., “ El derecho de asilo diplomático ,” Revista de Derecho International, Vol. 59 (1951), pp. 161–180 Google Scholar, and in Revista Española de Derecho International, Vol. IV (1951), pp. 59–66; Gonidec, P. F., “ L’affaire du droit de’asile ,” Revue Générale de Droit International Public (3* serie), Vol. 22 (1951), pp. 547–592 Google Scholar; Van Essen, J. L. F., in International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. I (1952), pp. 533–539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See, e.g., in German, Puchta, Das Gewohnheitsrecht (1828/37) ; Brie, Die Lehre vom Gewohnheitsrecht (1899); M. Rümelin, Die bindende Kraft des Gewohnheitsrechts (1919); Henrich, W., “ Zur Problematic des Gewohnheitsrechts ,” Recueil d’ètudes sur les sources du droit en l’honneur de Fr. Gény (Paris, 1935)Google Scholar, Vol. II, p. 276 et seq.

6 See Ch. Rousseau, Principes Généraux du Droit International Public (Paris, 1949), pp. 815–862 Google Scholar, and the large bibliographies on pp. 105–106, 815. Of later writings there must be added M. Sørensen, Les sources du droit international (1946); Mateesco, La coutume dans les cycles juridiques internationaux (1947); Guggenheim, P., Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Vol. I (1947), pp. 45–51 Google Scholar; A. Verdross, Völkerrecht (2nd ed., 1950), pp. 107–110; H. Kelsen, Principles of International Law (1952), pp. 303–317.

7 “Règles générales de la paix,” Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil des Cours, 1936 (IV), p. 508.

8 E.g., op. cit. (supra, note 6), p. 303.

9 See also H. W. Briggs, The Law of Nations (2nd ed., 1952), p. 44.

10 This confusion is clearly to be seen in Lawrence, T. J., The Principles of International Law (7th ed., London, 1915), p. 95 Google Scholar et seq., and in Stowell, Ellery C., International Law (New York, 1931), p. 26 Google Scholar.

11 The books by Ziccardi, La costituzione dell’ ordinamento internazionale (1943), and Sperduti, La fonte suprema dell’ ordinamento internaeionale (1946), wrestle with the problem of the “foundation,” in connection with that of custom.

12 Most Italian writers; particularly strongly by Strupp, K., Eléments du Droit International Public, Vol. I (Paris, 1930), p. 11 Google Scholar, and “Règles générales de la paix,” Recueil des Cours, Vol. 47 (1934, I), p. 36; Pas de normes là où il n’y a pas de traité explicite ou tacite.” But there are, on the one hand, adherents of the dualistic doctrine who flatly reject this construction (e.g., Pallieri, Balladore, Diritto Internationale Pubblico (5th ed., Milan, 1948), p. 540 Google Scholar et seq.); on the other hand, this construction is accepted by some Anglo-American writers: Lawrence, op. cit. (supra, note 10), p. 95; Westlake, John, International Law, Part I (Cambridge, 1904), p. 14 Google Scholar; A. S. Hershey, The Essentials of International Public Law (1921), pp. 19–20; Corbett, P. E. “The Consent of States and Sources of the Law of Nations,” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 6 (1925), p. 25 Google Scholar. See also Séfériades, S., Recueil des Cours, Vol. 34 (1930, IV), pp. 205, 209–210Google Scholar.

13 See in more recent times Lorimer, Law of Nations, Vol. I, p. 27 (international custom as “unconscious interpreter of the law of nature in international relations”); and Le Eur, L.: “ L’usage présuppose l’existence d’une règle juridigue obligatoire: il la constate simplement,” “Règles générales de la paix ,” Recueil des Cours, Vol. 57 (1935, IV), p. 197 Google Scholar.

14 G. Scelle, “Règles générales de la paix,” Recueil des Cours, 1939 (IV), pp. 348, 350, 358, 432–437; Précis de Droit des Gens (Paris, 1932), p. 5; Droit International Public (Paris, 1949), pp. 13–14.

15 “Règies générales de la paix,” Recueil des Cours, Vol. 66 (1938, IV), p. 173: “La coutume ne crée pas le droit, elle est un mode de constatation du droit: elle sanctionne des principes qui s’imposent d’eux-mêmes.”

16 “Règles générales de la paix,” Becueil des Cours, Vol. 62 (1937, IV), p. 158: “La coutume ne crée pas le droit: elle est la pratique actuelle qui se conforms à ce qui est déjà le droit"; p. 159: “La coutume est simplement la preuve de l’existence d’une régle indépendante de la volonté de ceux qui la suivent.”

17 “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” (“La coutume international, comme preuve d’une pratique générale acceptée comme étant de droit.”)

18 Ago, Roberto, Scienza Giuridica e Diritto Internazionale (Milan, 1950)Google Scholar.

19 That is why the norm, “Pacta sunt servanda,” cannot serve as the basic norm of international law.

20 E.g., G. Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law (1951), p. 13.

21 Thus Charles Cheney Hyde, International Law (2nd ed.), Vol. I (1945), p. 10; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, A Treatise, Vol. I (7th ed., 1948), p. 25; Verdross in Recueil des Cours, Vol. 30 (1929, V), p. 293; Kelsen, op. cit. (supra, note 6), p. 314.

22 The necessity of the condition of opinio juris plays a prominent rôle in international decisions; see The Lotus Case, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10, Sept. 7, 1928, p. 28, and the Asylum Case, cited above.

23 British Year Book of International Law, 1937, pp. 127–151.

24 Thus I. Ruiz Moreno, Derecho International Público (2nd ed.), Vol. I (1940), pp. 22–25; and D. Antókoletz, Tratado de Derecho International Público (4th ed.), Vol. I (1949), pp. 46–47. Vattel speaks of a “long usage.”

25 See Giuliano, Mario, La navigasione aerea nel diritto Internazionale generale (Milan, 1941)Google Scholar.

26 Thus Ruiz Moreno; Antókoletz, op. cit.; previously Vattel.

27 See The Paquete Habana (1900), 175 U. S. 677.

28 General Theory of Law and State (1945), p. 114.

29 See Josef L. Kunz, Die Völkerrechtliche Option, Vol. I (1925).

30 Kunz, Josef L., “The Chaotic Status of the Laws of War,” in this Journal , Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 37–61 Google Scholar.

31 The Scotia (U. S. Supreme Court, 1871), 14 Wallace 170.

32 See Giesler v. Giesler’s Heirs, Swiss Federal Court, July 11, 1935, Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases 1935–1937, pp. 1–2.

33 Island of Palmas Arbitration, 1928, this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 867; Judgment in the Case of Eastern Greenland, P.C.I.J., April 5, 1933, Series A/B, No. 53. On the other hand, the Clipperton Island Arbitration, 1931 (this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 390), seems to this writer not in conformity with general international law.

34 Contra: Judge Max Huber in the Island of Palmas Arbitration.

35 See the very interesting decision and reasoning of the Austrian Supreme Court in the case Hans Hoffman v. Jiri Dralle, May 10, 1950, reprinted in Osterreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, Vol. IV (1951), pp. 90–103.

36 See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, A Treatise (7th ed., 1948), p. 449 et seq., and Report of the Third Session of the U.N. International Law Commission, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 146–147.

37 “Sovereignty over Sub-Marine Areas,” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 27 (1950), pp. 376–433.

38 The Continental Shelf (The Hague, 1952).

39 Reprinted in International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. I (1952), pp. 247–261; digested in this Journal, Vol. 47 (1953), p. 156.

40 Loc. cit. (supra, note 36), pp. 139–144.

41 Hence, the statement by Professor Aramburø in this Journal, Vol. 47 (1953), pp. 120–123, is wholly untenable.