Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T06:46:37.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A No Decision: Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Debate over the Domestic Status of Customary International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Julian Ku
Julian Ku*
Affiliation:
Hofstra University Law School
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
Customary International Law as Federal Law After Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 101 , 2007 , pp. 267 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

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 See Bradley, Curtis A., Goldsmith, Jack L., & Moore, David H., Sosa, Customary International Law, and the Continuing Relevance of Erie, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 869 (2007)Google Scholar.

2 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

3 For a more extended critique of the Sosa decision, see Ku, Julian & Yoo, John, Beyond Formalism in Foreign Affairs: A Functional Approach to the Alien Tort Statute, 2004 Sup. CT. Rev. 153 Google Scholar.

4 See, e.g., Koh, Harold Hongju, Is International Law Really State Law?, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1824, 1825 n. 8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (citing the Nereide, 13 U.S. 9 Cranch) 388, 423 (1815) (1998); Paust, Jordan J., International Law As Law of the United States 30 n. 34 (1996)Google Scholar.

5 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

6 See Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 111 n. 3 (1987).

7 542 U.S. at 724 (acknowledging that at the time of the enactment of the Alien Tort Statute, the accepted conception was of the common law as ‘a transcendental body of law outside of any particular State but obligatory within it unless and until changed by statute.’”).

8 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 111.