No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
U.S. District Court Dismisses Agent Orange Litigation, Finding International IJIW as of 1975 Did Not Bar Military Use of Herbicides
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 March 2017
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.
- Type
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005
References
1 Vietnam Assoc, for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chem. Co., MDL No. 381, 04-CV-400 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2005) (amended memorandum, order, and judgment), at <http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/Decisions_of_lnterest/>.
2 28 U.S.C. §1350(2000).
3 Statement of Interest of the United States (Jan. 12, 2005), quoted in Vietnam Assoc, for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chem. Co. at 65; see Glaberson, William, U.S. Urges Judge to Dismiss Suit on Chemical Use in Vietnam War, N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 2005, at A17 Google Scholar.
4 304 F.Supp.2d 404 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).
5 818 F.2d 187(2dCir. 1987).
6 See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 512 (1988).
7 124 S.Ct. 2739(2004).
8 Vietnam Assoc, for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chemical Co. at 70 (quoting United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 2759 (2004)).
9 See id. at 222 (“As plaintiffs argue, a consensus among nations may gradually solidify into recognized international law provided that such consensus is reflected in state practice accompanied by opinio juris. No such understanding or consensus existed with respect to herbicides prior to 1975—possibly in part because of the proportionality problem.”)
10 Id. at 212–14 (citations omitted).