Structural Conflicts in the Interpretation of Customary International Law
Hofstra University - School of Law
Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 45, 2005
Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05-24
The use of customary international law ("CIL") by courts in the United States, long the subject of debate among scholars, has finally come to the attention of the Supreme Court. In the last few years, the Court has interpreted and applied CIL to interpret provisions of the U.S. Constitution, to interpret statutes and treaties, and as a substantive rule of decision. While the Supreme Court's renewed interest in customary international law has drawn much praise, it has also sparked sharp criticism. The purpose of this symposium essay is not to recapitulate these disagreements, but instead, to identify a different problem with the interpretive and substantive use of CIL by federal and state courts. Whether a court uses CIL as a tool for statutory or constitutional interpretation or as a substantive rule of decision, the court's usage creates potentially serious structural conflicts in the U.S. constitutional system.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 20
Keywords: customary international law, separation of powers, constitutional law
JEL Classification: K30, K33Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 29, 2005
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.422 seconds