¹ Lord Bingham, ‘Foreword’ in S Fatima, Using International Law in Domestic Courts (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2005).

² Lauterpacht, H, ‘Decisions of Municipal Courts as a Source of International Law’ (1929) 10 British Ybk Intl L 65, 67–68Google Scholar, fn 1.

³ R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.3) [2000] AC 147.

⁴ Eichmann v Attorney-General of Israel (1962) 36 ILR 277.

⁵ Filártiga v Peña-Irala, 630 F 2d 876 (2^nd Cir 1980).

⁶ A Nollkaemper, ‘Decisions of National Courts as Sources of International Law: An Analysis of the Practice of the ICTY,’ in G Boas and W Schabas (eds), International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2003) 277 (Nollkaemper ICTY); Nollkaemper, A, ‘The Role of Domestic Courts in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice’ (2006) 5 Chinese J Intl L 301, 303–311Google Scholar (Nollkaemper ICJ).

⁷ On the importance of domestic court decisions as a source of international law, see Lauterpacht (n 2) 67–71; Jennings, R, ‘The Judiciary, International and National Law, and the Development of International Law’ (1996) 45 ICLQ 1, 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For examples of domestic courts, and particularly common law appellate courts, looking sideways when identifying and interpreting international law, see below, Sections II.B and III.B.

⁸ Various websites provide national decisions on particular treaties or areas of international law. For example, UNCITRAL case law <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/case_law.html>; refugee case law <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,LEGAL,,,,,0.html>, <http://www.refugeecaselaw.org/>; international criminal case law <http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Legal+Texts+and+Tools/Legal+Tools/>; international humanitarian case law <http://www.icrc.org/IHL-NAT.NSF/WebALL!OpenView>; indigenous rights case law <http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/mining/indigenous/>.

⁹ While the International Law Reports have long included select decisions of national courts, the new International Law in Domestic Courts service provides wider access to domestic cases concerning the identification and interpretation of international law and its reception into domestic law. Jennings (n 7) 1–2; ‘About Oxford Reports on International Law’<http://www.oxfordlawreports.com/about#aboutildc>accessed 30 October 2010.

¹⁰ R Falk, The Role of Domestic Courts in the International Legal Order (Syracuse University Press, New York, 1964) 72; Schermers, H, ‘The Role of Domestic Courts in Effectuating International Law’ (1990) 3 Leiden J Intl L 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 79; B Conforti and F Francioni (eds), Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 1997); T Franck and G Fox (eds), International Law Decisions in National Courts (Transnational Publishers, New York, 1996); B Conforti, International Law and the Role of Domestic Legal Systems (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, 1993); Koh, H, ‘How is International Human Rights Law Enforced?’ (1998–1999) 74 Indiana L J 1397Google Scholar; Koh, H, ‘The 1998 Frankel Lecture: Bringing International Law Home’ (1998–1999) 35 Houston L Rev 623Google Scholar.

¹¹ Lauterpacht (n 2) 93; Falk (n 10); see also Institut de Droit International, Resolution on The Activities of National Judges and the International Relations of their State, 7 September 2003 <www.idi-iil.org/idiE/resolutionsE/1993_mil_01_en.PDF> accessed 30 October 2010.

¹² Benvenisti, E, ‘Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law: an Analysis of the Attitudes of National Courts’ (1993) 4 European J Intl L 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 161.

¹³ Benvenisti, E, ‘Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts’ (2008) 102 AJIL 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 243. See also Benvenisti, E and Downs, G, ‘National Courts, Domestic Democracy, and the Evolution of International Law’ (2009) 20 European J Intl L 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Shany, Y, ‘National Courts as International Actors: Jurisdictional Implications’ (2009) Federalismi 1, 2Google Scholar <http://www.effective-intl-adjudication.org/admin/Reports/2af9ed4d4a026e581437876dd1b73b87Yuval.pdf>accessed 30 October 2010.

¹⁵ The former represents a step towards international law creation because the practice of individual States forms the building blocks on which international law is based. The latter can be characterized as international law enforcement because it assumes that the decisions of domestic courts accurately reflect the existing state of international law.

¹⁶ Ferrini v Federal Republic of Germany (2006) 128 ILR 658. Corte di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite) (Judgment No 5044 of 6 November 2003, Registered 11 March 2004) 87 Rivistadiritto internazionale (2004) 539.

¹⁷ Jones v Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26.

¹⁸ Although this Statute only sets out the sources that the ICJ should turn to in deciding a case, it is considered to be reflective of the sources of international law more generally. I Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (6^th edn OUP, Oxford, 2003) 5; R Jennings and A Watts (eds), Oppenheim's International Law (9^th edn Longman, Harlow, 1992) vol 1, 24 (Oppenheim).

¹⁹ National court decisions are also relevant in establishing general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, but due to disagreements about the nature and legitimacy of this source, this article does not deal with the issue.

²⁰ Moremen, P, ‘National Court Decisions as State Practice: A Transjudicial Dialogue?’ (2006) 32 North Carolina J Intl L & Commercial Regulation 259, 274–284Google Scholar; Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland) (Merits) PCIJ Rep Series A No.7, 19; cited with approval in Prosecutor v Delalic et al (Judgment) ICTY-96-21 (20 February 2001) para 76.

²¹ But see Committee on Formation of Customary (General) International Law, ‘Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law’ in Final Report of the Committee (London 2000) (International Law Association, London, 2000) 18 <http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/30>accessed 30 October 2010 (ILA Report).

²² Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT) art 31(3); R Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (OUP, Oxford, 2008) 225–249; M Villiger, Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2009) 429–432.

²³ Brownlie (n 18) 6; M Shaw, International Law (6^th edn, CUP, Cambridge, 2008) 82; Oppenheim (n 18) 26, 41–42; Moremen, (n 20) 261, 278–82; ILA Report (n 21) 14, 18.

²⁴ VCLT (n 22) art 31(3)(c).

²⁵ Brownlie (n 18) 22; Shaw (n 23) 111–112; H Thirlway, ‘The Sources of International Law’ in M Evans (ed) International Law (2^nd edn, OUP, Oxford, 2006) 115, 130; Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987) s 103(2) and comment b, s 112; R Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (OUP, Oxford, 1994) 218; ILA Report (n 21) 18.

²⁶ Brownlie (n 18) 19; Thirlway (n 25) 129; Oppenheim (n 18) 41; Restatement (Third) (n 25) s 102, reporter's note 1. This is reinforced by art 59 of the ICJ Statute.

²⁷ Brownlie (n 18) 19; Shaw (n 23) 109; Thirlway (n 25) 129–30; Meron, T, ‘Revival of Customary Humanitarian Law’ (2005) 99 AJIL 817, 819–20Google Scholar; Oppenheim (n 18) 41.

²⁸ Nollkaemper, A, ‘The Independence of the Domestic Judiciary in International Law’ (2006) XVII Finnish Ybk Intl L 1, 12–13Google Scholar; Nollkaemper ICTY (n 6) 291–92. This is particularly true of Anglo-American approaches to international law. Brownlie (n 18) 22; Shaw (n 23) 112.

²⁹ Brownlie (n 18) 22. See also Restatement (Third) (n 25) s 103, comment b; Kelly, J, ‘The Twilight of Customary International Law’ (1999–2000) 40 Virginia J Intl L 449, 506Google Scholar.

³⁰ Ferrini (n 16).

³¹ Jones (n 17).

³² ibid para 9.

³³ ibid para 11.

³⁴ ibid para 9.

³⁵ Prefecture of Voiotia v Federal Republic of Germany (Case no 11/2000) (unreported, 4 May 2000).

³⁶ Prosecutor v Furundžija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 December 1998).

³⁷ Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, 35763/97 European Court of Human Rights (21 November 2001).

³⁸ Al-Adsani v Government of Kuwait (No 2) (1996) 107 ILR 536.

³⁹ Al-Adsani (n 37).

⁴⁰ Houshang Bouzari v Islamic Republic of Iran, C38295 [2004] OJ 2800 (Ont. Ct. App. 30 June 2004).

⁴¹ Germany v Mantelli & Ors, Italian Supreme Court, 29 May 2008 (Order No. 14200–14212 and the Judgment No. 14199) <http://www.cortedicassazione.it>accessed 30 October 2010; Focarelli, C, ‘Case Report: Federal Republic of Germany v. M.G. and Others’ (2009) 103 AJIL 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A Chechi and R Pavoni, ‘Germany v Mantelli & Ors’ (IT 2008) International Law in Domestic Courts 1037 (Mantelli summary).

⁴² Mantelli summary, ibid para 11.

⁴³ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy) (Application) 23 December 2008, para 13 <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/14923.pdf>accessed 30 October 2010.

⁴⁴ Jones (n 17), paras 92, 99. On the Convention Against Torture, the Court held at para 21, that: ‘[a]rticle 14(1) is not designed to require every other state (state B) to provide redress in its civil legal system for acts of torture committed in state A,’ but noted that ‘under article 14(2) it remains permissible for state B to provide [such] redress’. At para 21, the Court also noted that the Alien Tort Statute might be an example of the wider jurisdiction permitted by art 14(2) of the Convention Against Torture.

⁴⁵ Jones (n 17) paras 24–27.

⁴⁶ ibid para 27; see also paras 24–26, 44–64.

⁴⁷ ibid paras 60–62; see also Bouzari (n 40), Voiotia (n 35), Al- Adsani (n 37).

⁴⁸ ibid paras 20, 58.

⁴⁹ ibid paras 63, 22.

⁵⁰ ibid para 63 (emphasis added).

⁵¹ Focarelli, C, ‘Denying Foreign State Immunity for Commission of International Crimes: the Ferrini Decision’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 951, 955–57Google Scholar (Ferrini is a welcome effort to deter states from committing international crimes and represents a first step towards developing new rules of customary international law, but it does not reflect existing customary international law); Gattini, A, ‘War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision’ (2005) 3 J Intl Criminal Justice 224, 241–42Google Scholar (Ferrini represents judicial activism that could be seen as an appreciable contribution to international human rights law, but its unconvincing and contradictory reasoning is likely to undermine its contribution to the development of immunity law); Bianchi, A, ‘Ferrini v Federal Republic of Germany’ (2005) 99 AJIL 242, 245–48Google Scholar (welcoming Ferrini as a contribution to the ongoing debate over the appropriate balance between jus cogens norms and immunity but criticizing some of its reasoning).

⁵² Bradley, C and Goldsmith, J, ‘Foreign Sovereign Immunity, Individual Officials, and Human Rights Litigation’ (2009) 13 Green Bag 2d 9, 16, 21–23Google Scholar (citing Jones as an accurate statement of international law); Steinerte, E and Wallace, R, ‘Jones v Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ (2006) 100 AJIL 901, 904–908Google Scholar (criticizing Jones for being one-sided and not recognizing that the law is in a state of flux with various developments indicating a movement away from immunity for jus cogens violations).

⁵³ Scelle's dédoublement fonctionnel theory is discussed in A Cassese, ‘Remarks on Scelle's Theory of ‘Role Splitting’ (déboulement fonctionnel) in International Law' (1990) 1 European J Intl L 210 and Shany (n 14) 13–16. See also Nollkaemper, A, ‘Internationally Wrongful Acts in Domestic Courts’ (2007) 101 AJIL 760Google Scholar, 799.

⁵⁴ Lauterpacht (n 2) 93; see also 67.

⁵⁵ Falk (n 10) 4, xii.

⁵⁶ Cassese (n 53) 228, 230–31.

⁵⁷ On the problem of national courts being motivated by national interests, see Nollkaemper (n 28) 39; W Friedmann, The Changing Structure of International Law (Columbia University Press, New York, 1964) 147.

⁵⁸ Provost, R, ‘Judging in Splendid Isolation’ (2008) 56 American J Comparative L 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 139; Nollkaemper (n 53) 799.

⁵⁹ Domestic courts are not necessarily partial law creators in the sense of being nationalistic or parochial, but their contributions are partial in the sense that national judgments are building blocks in international law's development. Brierly, J, ‘International Law in England’ (1935) 51 LQR 24Google Scholar, 25.

⁶⁰ In some cases, international courts use national court decisions as evidence of State practice, relevant to the formation of customary international law or the interpretation of treaties. For example, in Jelisić and Krstić, the ICTY looked to State practice, including legislation and case law, when interpreting the Genocide Convention, while in Erdemović the Court looked to national decisions in determining the existence of customary international law. Prosecutor v Jelisić (Judgment) ICTY-95-10-T, 14 (December 1999) para 61; Prosecutor v Krstić (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 August 2001) paras 541, 575, 579, 589; Prosecutor v Erdemović (Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 October 2001) para 55. In other cases, international tribunals give domestic decisions greater weight, treating them as ‘an apparent quasi-independent authority that cannot be reduced to a constituent element’ of customary international law or treaty interpretation. Nollkaemper ICTY (n 6) 277. The use of a handful of cases as authority in Furundžija (n 36) is an example.

⁶¹ SS ‘Lotus’ (France v Turkey) PCIJ Rep Series No 10, 23, 26 and 28–9.

⁶² Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v Belgium) [2002] ICJ Rep 3, paras 56–58. See generally Nollkaemper ICJ (n 6) 303–11.

⁶³ Furundžija (n 36) paras 147, 153, 156, 254. See generally Nollkaemper ICTY (n 6).

⁶⁴ P Mahoney, ‘The Comparative Method in Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Reference Back to National Law’ in G Canivet et al (eds), Comparative Law before the Courts (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, 2004) 137.

⁶⁵ H Fox, The Law of State Immunity (OUP, Oxford, 2008) 201–11; Francioni, F, ‘International Law as a Common Language for National Courts’ (2001) 36 Texas Intl L J 587, 589–90Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ For example, The Schooner Exchange v McFaddon (1812) 11 US 116, 7 Cranch 116 (US Supreme Court); The Parlement Belge (1878–1879) 4 PD 129 Probate and Admiralty Division. See generally Fox (n 65) 201–211.

⁶⁷ For example, Guttieres v Elmilik (1886) Il Foro Italiano (Rome) 913 and SA des Chemins de Fer Liégeois-Luxembourgeois v l'Etat Néerlandais, Pasicrisie Belge 1903, I 294, both cited in Fox (n 65) 224–225.

⁶⁸ ‘Changing Policy Concerning the Granting of Sovereign Immunity to Foreign Governments,’ Letter to US Acting Attorney-General, 19 May 1952 (1952) 26 US Department of State Bulletin 984; Trendtex Trading Co v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] QB 529 (Court of Appeal). See Fox (n 65) 211–215, 220–221; Francioni (n 65) 589–590.

⁶⁹ Trendtex (n 68) 556 (Denning LJ).

⁷⁰ Focarelli (n 41) 130–131; Focarelli (n 51) 957; Gattini (n 51) 241–242; Fox (n 65) 156–157.

⁷¹ See above, text accompanying (n 43).

⁷² Pinochet (n 3) 200–05 (Browne Wilkinson LJ), 243–249 (Hope of Craighead LJ), 261–265 (Hutton LJ), 266–268 (Saville of Newdigate LJ), 277–278 (Millet LJ), 289–290 (Phillips of Worth Matravers LJ).

⁷³ Jones (n 17) para 63.

⁷⁴ Bouzari (n 40) para 95.

⁷⁵ Benvenisti (n 13) 241–42, 253–258; K Scheppele, ‘The Migration of Anti-Constitutional Ideas: The Post-9/11 Globalization of Public Law and the International State of Emergency’ in S Choudhry (ed), The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (CUP, Cambridge, 2007) (tracing the migration of judicial resistance in response to anti-terrorism legislation and executive actions). See also Roberts, A, ‘Righting Wrongs or Wronging Rights? The United States and Human Rights Post-September 11’ (2004) 15 EJIL 721, 735–737Google Scholar (predicting the rise of judicial attempts to check executive power in the ‘war on terror’).

⁷⁶ Knop, K, ‘Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts’ (2000) 32 New York University JILP 501, 505–506Google Scholar. See also Provost (n 58) 126, 167–68; Bahdi, R, ‘Truth and Method in Domestic Application of International Law’ (2002) 15 Canadian J L and Jurisprudence 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁷ Knop (n 76) 505–506.

⁷⁸ W Ferdinandusse, Direct Application of International Criminal Law by National Courts (CUP, Cambridge, 2006) 23–25.

⁷⁹ R v Safi (Ali Ahmed) [2003] EWCA Crim 1809. See A Nollkaemper, ‘The Power of Secondary Rules of International Law to Connect the International and National Legal Orders’ in T Broude and Y Shany (eds), Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms (2010 forthcoming); Nollkaemper (n 53) 795.

⁸⁰ R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan [2001] All E.R. 593, 617 (Steyn LJ).

⁸¹ Curran, V, ‘Re-Membering Law in the Internationalizing World’ (2005) 34 Hofstra L Rev 93Google Scholar, 97.

⁸² ibid 115–123.

⁸³ Munday, R, ‘The Uniform Interpretation of International Conventions’ (1978) 27 ICLQ 450CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁴ Ferdinandusse (n 78) 5.

⁸⁵ Honnold, J, ‘The Sales Convention in Action—Uniform International Words: Uniform Application?’ (1988) 8 J of L and Commerce 207Google Scholar, 208; J Felemegas, ‘The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Article 7 and Uniform Interpretation’ <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/felemegas.html#N_518> accessed 30 October 2010.

⁸⁶ 28 USC s 1350 (2005).

⁸⁷ Contrast Stephens, B, ‘Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations’ (2002) 27 Yale J Intl L 1, 10–17Google Scholar with Anderson, K, ‘The Rise of International Criminal Law: Intended and Unintended Consequences’ (2009) 20 EJIL 331, 350–351Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ For example, Kadić 70 F.3d at 240 (2d Cir. 1995); Beanal v Freeport-McMoRan, Inc, 969 F.Supp. 362, 371 (ED La 1997); Presbyterian Church v Talisman Energy, 244 F Supp 2d 289, 306 (SDNY 2003).

⁸⁹ Restatement (Third) (n 25) s 404, comment b.

⁹⁰ Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (n 62) 77 (Joint Separate Opinion of Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal); Jones (n 17) paras 20, 58. See generally Donovan, D and Roberts, A, ‘The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction’ (2006) 100 AJIL 142, 146–48Google Scholar; Parlett, K, ‘Universal Civil Jurisdiction for Torture’ (2007) 4 European Human Rights L Rev 385, 392–94Google Scholar; Ryngaert, C, ‘Universal tort jurisdiction over gross human rights violations’ (2007) 38 Netherlands Ybk Intl L 3, 32–41Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Sosa v Alvarez Machain 542 US 692, 732 (2004).

⁹² When looking to international law for support, US courts often reason that, with the advent of international criminal law, international law permits liability of State and non-state actors. Arguments that international law creates criminal liability for natural persons rather than civil liability for juridical persons are dismissed on the basis that domestic US law does not recognize a distinction between natural and juridical persons for the purposes of civil liability and, in any event, distinguishing between individuals and corporations in this way would lack normative justification. See Presbyterian Church v Talisman Energy, 244 F Supp 2d 289 (SDNY 2003); Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange v Dow Chemical Co, 373 F Supp 2d 7 (EDNY 2005). See also Anderson (n 87) 350–351. The Second Circuit recently took a different approach, however, finding that whether a corporation could be held liable under the ATS depended on whether corporations could be held liable under international rather than US law. Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Decision, 17 September 2010.

⁹³ This may be understood as arising from the existence of plural sources of legal norms combined with plural sites for law creation and enforcement: Antoniolli, L, ‘Taking Legal Pluralism Seriously: the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Role of International Law before US Federal Courts’ (2005) 12 Indiana J of Global Legal Studies 651CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ochoa, C, ‘Access to US Federal Courts as a Forum for Human Rights Disputes: Pluralism and the Alien Tort Claim Act’ (2005) 12 Indiana J of Global Legal Studies 631CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁴ Donovan and Roberts (n 90) 154; International Bar Association, Report of the Task Force on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (IBA, 2009) 120–121.

⁹⁵ For example, France: Code de Procédure Pénale, arts 689-2 – 689-10 (universal jurisdiction), arts 2-3 (action civile); Germany: Völkerstrafgesetzbuch [Code of Crimes Against International Law], 30 June 2002, s 1 (universal jurisdiction); Strafprozessordnung [Federal Criminal Procedure Code], ss 403–406c (action civile); Spain: Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (Organic Law of the Judiciary), art 23(4) (universal jurisdiction); Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (Criminal Proceedings Law), art 112 (criminal complaint also a civil claim unless victim expressly states otherwise).

⁹⁶ These cases are starting to occur. For example, in the Ntuyahaga case, a major in the Rwandan army was charged with killing 10 Belgian blue helmets, Rwandan Prime Minister Uwilingiyimana and an ‘undetermined’ number of Rwandans. An action civile was constituted on behalf of 164 victims and heirs. Ntuyahaga was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and ordered to pay €540,000 to 21 civil parties: The Case of the Major, Cour d'Assises de Bruxelles, 5 July 2007 <http://www.hirondellenews.com/content/view/9907/274/> accessed 30 October 2010.

⁹⁷ Sosa (n 91) 762–763 (Breyer, J concurring).

⁹⁸ Stephens (n 87); B Schaack, Van, ‘In Defense of Civil Redress: The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention’ (2001) 42 Harvard Intl L J 141Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ J Crawford and M Young, ‘International Law in National Courts: Discussion’ in The Function of Law in the International Community: An Anniversary Symposium (2008), Proceedings of the 25^th Anniversary Conference of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law <http://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/25th_anniversary/book.php> accessed 30 October 2010.

¹⁰⁰ J Wouters, A Nollkaemper and E de Wet, ‘Introduction: The “Europeanisation” of International Law’ in J Wouters, A Nollkaemper and E de Wet (eds), The Europeanisation of International Law: The Status of International Law in the EU and its Member States (CUP, The Hague, 2008) 1.

¹⁰¹ J Pauwelyn, ‘Europe, America and the “Unity” of International Law’ in Wouters, Nollkaemper and de Wet (eds), ibid 205.

¹⁰² Joerges, C, ‘The Challenge of Europeanization in the Realm of Private Law’ (2004) 14 Duke J of Comparative and Intl L 149, 159–160Google Scholar. See also Curran (n 81) 97; Legrand, P, ‘European Systems Are Not Converging’ (1996) 45 ICLQ 52, 61–62Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ R Robertson, ‘Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity’ in M Featherstone, S Lash and R Robertson (eds) Global Modernities (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 1995); K Knop, ‘State Law Without Its State’ in A Sarat, L Douglas and M Umphrey (eds) Law Without Nations (Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2010).

¹⁰⁴ Waters, M, ‘Mediating Norms and Identity: The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law’ (2005) 93 Georgetown L J 487Google Scholar, 490.

¹⁰⁵ ibid. See also Berman, P, ‘A Pluralist Approach to International Law’ (2007) Yale J Intl L 301, 311Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Without focusing on the role of domestic courts, Bradford and Posner contend that all major powers take ‘exceptionalist’ approaches to international law that reflect their own values and interests and that international law might reflect the overlapping consensus of otherwise exceptionalist positions. A Bradford and E Posner, ‘Universal Exceptionalism in International Law’ <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1551355> accessed 30 October 2010.

¹⁰⁷ Koskenniemi, M, ‘International Law in Europe: Between Tradition and Renewal’ (2005) 16 EJIL 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 115.

¹⁰⁸ Compare Burke-White, W, ‘International Legal Pluralism’ (2005) 25 Michigan J Intl L 963, 965–66Google Scholar with Pauwelyn (n 101) 208–13. On global legal pluralism, see Michaels, R, ‘Global Legal Pluralism’ (2009) 5 Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berman, P, ‘Global Legal Pluralism’ (2007) 80 Southern California L Rev 1155Google Scholar; Berman (n 105).

¹⁰⁹ Slaughter, A, ‘A Global Community of Courts’ (2003) 44 Harvard Intl L J 191Google Scholar; A-M Slaughter, ‘A Typology of Transjudicial Communication’ (1994–1995) 29 University of Richmond L Rev 99 (Slaughter Typology).

¹¹⁰ S Choudhry, ‘Migration as a New Metaphor in Comparative Constitutional Law’ in S Choudhry (n 75); Posner, E and Sunstein, C, ‘The Law of Other States’ (2006) 59 Stanford L Rev 131Google Scholar; Saunders, C, ‘The Use and Misuse of Comparative Constitutional Law’ (2006) 13 Indiana J of Global Legal Studies 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barak-Erez, D, ‘The International Law of Human Rights and Constitutional Law: A Case Study of an Expanding Dialogue’ (2004) 2 Intl J of Constitutional L 611CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Breyer, S, ‘Keynote Address’ (2003) 97 American Society of Intl L Proceedings 265Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Kennedy, D, ‘New Approaches to Comparative Law: Comparativism and International Governance’ (1997) 2 Utah L Rev 545, 546–551Google Scholar; K Zweigert and H Kotz, Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd edn, OUP, Oxford, 1998) 2, 7.

¹¹² D Sloss, ‘United States’, in D Sloss (ed) The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study (CUP, Cambridge, 2009) 504, 591.

¹¹³ J Dugard, ‘South Africa’ in Sloss (n 112) 470; D Kretzmer, ‘Israel’ in Sloss (n 112) 291.

¹¹⁴ G van Ert, ‘Canada’ in Sloss (n 112) 185; L Garlicki, M Masternak-Kubiak and K Wojtowicz, ‘Poland’, in Sloss (n 112) 398.

¹¹⁵ CISG (adopted 11 April 1980, entered into force 1 January 1988) 1489 UNTS 3 art 7(1).

¹¹⁶ For example, the 1974 Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods (adopted 12 June 1974, entered into force 1 August 1988) 1511 UNTS 2 art 7 and the 1978 United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (adopted 31 March 1983, entered into force 1 November 1992) 1695 UNTS 3 art 3. See P Schlechtriem, ‘Article 7’ in I Schwenzer (ed), Schlechtriem & Schwenzer: Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (3^rd edn OUP, Oxford, 2005) 93, 95–97.

¹¹⁷ For example, Canada: Recchia v KLM Lignes Aériennes Royale Néerlandaises [1999] RJQ 2024 (Que SC); Connaught Laboratories Ltd v British Airways (2002) 61 OR (3d) 2004 (Ont SC); Plourde v Service Aérien FBO (Skyservice) 2007 QCCA 739 (Que SC); Israel: FH 36/84 Tiechner v Air France 41 PD (1) 589; VM 1818/03 (Naz), El Al v David PM, 5763 (1) 737; South Africa: Potgieter v British Airways, 2005 (3) SALR 133 (C).

¹¹⁸ Benvenisti (n 13) 263–65.

¹¹⁹ International Association of Refugee Law Judges <http://www.iarlj.org/general/> accessed 30 October 2010.

¹²⁰ Pinochet (n 3) 244 (per Hope LJ). German comparative law scholars note that German courts are likely to engage in comparative analysis when interpreting major international treaties. Markesinis, B, ‘The Judge as Comparatist’ (2005) 80 Tulane L Rev 11Google Scholar, 107 (citing studies conducted by Ulrich Drobing). Likewise, the Italian courts frequently engage in comparative treaty interpretation, as occurred in Tribunal di Vigevano, 12 July 2000 (interpreting the CISG in light of 40 foreign court decisions).

¹²¹ Munday (n 83) 458–59. See also Zweigert and Kotz (n 111) 27–28.

¹²² VCLT (n 22) art 31(1).

¹²³ ibid art 31(3)(b).

¹²⁴ Simma, B, ‘Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner’ (2009) 20 European J Intl L 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 290. See also J d'Aspremont, ‘The Systemic Integration of International Law by Domestic Courts: Domestic Judges as Architects of the Consistency of the International Legal Order’ (unpublished paper, 2009) <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1401019>accessed 30 October 2010.

¹²⁵ Adan (n 80) 617 (Steyn LJ).

¹²⁶ Allott, P, ‘The Concept of International Law’ (1999) 10 European J Intl L 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 43.

¹²⁷ Wai, R, ‘The Interlegality of Transnational Private Law’ (2008) 71 L and Contemporary Problems 107, 108–109Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ Sanchez-Llamas v Oregon, 548 US 331 (2006); Bundesverfassungsgericht, 19 September 2006, Case Nos. 2 BvR 2115/012, BvR 2132/01 and 2 BvR 348/03, discussed in Garditz, K, ‘Case Nos. 2 BvR 2115/01, 2 BvR 2132/01 & 2 BvR 348/03 (Vienna Convention on Consular Relations case): German Federal Constitutional Court decision on failure to provide consular notification’ (2007) 101 AJIL 627Google Scholar, 634.

¹²⁹ O'Connor, S, ‘Keynote Address’ (2002) 96 American Society of Intl L Proceedings 348, 350Google Scholar; Breyer (n 110) 266; Roper v Simmons 543 US 551, 578 (2005); Slaughter Typology (n 109) 124–125.

¹³⁰ VCLT (n 22) art 31(3)(b).

¹³¹ Appellate Body Report, Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, at 12–13, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R (adopted 1 November 1996) (quoting, 1st quote, I Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2^nd edn, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1984) 137); Gardiner (n 22) 225; A McNair, The Law of Treaties (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961) 424.

¹³² Gardiner (n 22) 227, 235–39; McNair (n 131) 427; Villiger (n 22) 431; ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 18th Session’ (4 May–19 July 1966) UN Doc A/CN.4/191, para 15.

¹³³ Abbott v Abbott 560 US_(2010).

¹³⁴ ibid 12–15 (slip opinion).

¹³⁵ ibid 22–25 (slip opinion).

¹³⁶ Dorsen, N, ‘The Relevance of Foreign Legal Materials in US Constitutional Cases: A Conversation Between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer’ (2005) 3 Intl J of Constitutional L 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scalia, A, ‘Keynote Address: Foreign Legal Authority in the Federal Courts’ (2004) 98 American Society of Intl L Proceedings 305Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ Alford, R, ‘Misusing International Sources to Interpret the Constitution’ (2004) 98 AJIL 57, 64–67Google Scholar; Ramsey, M, ‘International Materials and Domestic Rights: Reflections on Atkins and Lawrence’ (2004) 98 AJIL 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 77.

¹³⁸ Roper v Simmons 534 US 551 (2005) (Scalia); Dorsen (n 136) 521–22, 531; see also Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G Roberts, Jr. 13 September 2005; Alford, ibid 67–69; Ramsey ibid 76–77.

¹³⁹ R Posner, ‘No Thanks, We Already Have Our Own Laws: The Court Should Never View a Foreign Legal Decision as a Precedent in Any Way’ (July/August 2004) Legal Affairs <http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2004/feature_posner_julaug04.msp> accessed 30 October 2010.

¹⁴⁰ Dorsen (n 136) 531; Scalia (n 136) 309.

¹⁴¹ Scalia (n 136) 305; see also Dorsen (n 136) 521.

¹⁴² Olympic Airways v Husain 540 US 644, 658 (2004) (Scalia, J dissenting).

¹⁴³ Dorsen (n 136) 521.

¹⁴⁴ Ramsey (n 137) 71.

¹⁴⁵ Sitaraman, G, ‘The Use and Abuse of Foreign Law in Constitutional Interpretation’ (2009) 32 Harvard J of L and Public Policy 653Google Scholar, 656 fn 12.

¹⁴⁶ On general approaches to and difficulties with comparative methodologies, see R Michaels, ‘The Functional Method of Comparative Law’, in M Reimann and R Zimmerman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (OUP, Oxford, 2006) 339; Zweigert and Kotz (n 111); HP Glenn, ‘Comparative Legal Reasoning and the Courts: A View from the Americas’, in Canivet and others (eds) (n 64) 217; B Markesinis, Foreign Law and Comparative Methodology: A Subject and a Thesis (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 1997); Markesinis, B, ‘The Judge as Comparatist’ (2005) 80 Tulane L Rev 11Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ Stapleton, J, ‘Benefits of Comparative Tort Reasoning: Lost in Translation’ (2007) 1 J of Tort L 1, 30–37Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁸ Ferrini (n 16) para 8. See discussion in Jones (n 17), paras 22, 55, 62.

¹⁴⁹ Arvind, TT, ‘The “Transplant Effect” in Harmonization’ (2010) 59 ICLQ 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 65.

¹⁵⁰ See above Section III.A.

¹⁵¹ Gardiner (n 22) 225–49; Villiger (n 22) 429–432. Thus Jones and Ferrini made determinations about the content of international law based on case law from a handful of jurisdictions, while Olympic Airways shows that the existence of numerous treaty parties does not necessarily translate into a wealth of case law on specific points.

¹⁵² Medellín v Texas 552 US 491, 516 (2008); Sanchez-Llamas (n 128) 343–344.

¹⁵³ Wuerth, I, ‘Transnationalizing Public Law’ (2009) 10 German L J 1337Google Scholar, 1339.

¹⁵⁴ Asylum (Colombia/Peru) [1950] ICJ Rep 266, 276; North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands)[1969] ICJ Rep 3, 42, para 73; Thirlway (n 25) 124; Restatement (Third) (n 25) s 102(2).

¹⁵⁵ In the Nicaragua case, for example, the ICJ found customary prohibitions on the use of force and intervention by citing General Assembly resolutions, noting that it was sufficient for conduct to be generally consistent with these statements, provided that instances of inconsistent practice had been treated as breaches of the rule concerned rather than as generating a new rule. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v US) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 186. In DRC v Belgium, the ICJ stated that it had ‘carefully examined State practice, including national legislation and those few decisions of national higher courts’ and, from that, it was unable to find a customary international law exception to the immunity of incumbent ministers of foreign affairs. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (n 62) para 52. Yet it did not cite widespread and consistent practice on the immunity of foreign ministers in the first place, nor explain why the State practice in favour of an exception was insufficient. Nor is the ICJ the only international court to fall short of the professed approach to establishing custom. For example, in Tadic, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY found that customary international law imposes individual criminal liability for certain violations in internal armed conflicts based on a single Nigerian judgment, military manuals from a handful of States (Germany, New Zealand, America and the United Kingdom), limited legislation (Yugoslavia and Belgium) and two Security Council resolutions (that applied to Somalia and were not specific on the point). Prosecutor v Tadic (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) IT-94-1-A (5 October 1995), paras 128–134. See R Schondorf, A Theory of Supra-National Criminal Law (unpublished JSD thesis).