Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:38:05.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Role of Domestic Courts in Enforcing International Human Rights Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Richard B. Lillich*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Perspectives on Enforcement of Human Rights
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1980

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 38 Cal. 2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952).

2 The Use of International Human Rights Norms in U.S. Courts (April 1980).

3 Memorial of United States, Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular staff in Tehran 71-72 (January 1980).

4 Lillich, The Rile of Domestic Courts in Promoting International Human Rights Norms, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND PRACTICE 105 (J. Tuttle ed. 1978).

5 79 Misc. 2d 1046,362 N.Y.S. 2d 321 (Sup. Ct. 1974), aff'd, 49 A.D. 2d 851,374 N.Y.S. 2d 9 (1st Dep't 1975), aff'd, 41 N.Y. 2d 345, 361 N.E. 2d 963, 393 N.Y.S. 2d 312 (1977).

6 470 F.2d 461 (D.D. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 931 (1973).

7 Diggs v. Dent, No. 74-1292, slip op. (D.D.C. May 13, 1975), printed in 14 I.L.M. 797 (1975), aff'd sub. nom. Diggs v. Richardson, 555 F.2d 848 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

8 Finch, The Need to Restrain the Treaty-Making Power of the United States within Constitutional Limits, 48 A.J.I.L. 57, 72 (1954).

9 175 U.S. 677 (1900).

10 See note 3 supra.

11 Id.

12 458 F. Sup. 569 (E.D. Texas 1978), appeal docketed, No. 78-3311 (5th Cir. 1978).

13 Id. at 592.

14 Unreported (D.D.C. 1979), appeal docketed, No. 80-1071 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

15 Unreported (E.D.N.Y.1979), appeal docketed, No. 78-6090 (2d Cir. 1979).

16 After the delivery of this paper, the United States submitted a Memorandum to the Second Circuit suggesting that official torture now violates customary international law. Shortly thereafter, the Second Circuit, agreeing with this memorandum, reversed the judgment of the District Court.

17 See text accompanying note 16 supra.