international lawtraditional definition 3 chapter i · sources of international law 5 who makes up...
TRANSCRIPT
International Law
Fifth Edition
Valerie EppsProfessor of Law
Suffolk University Law SchoolBoston, MA, U.S.A.
Carolina Academic PressDurham, North Carolina
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page iii
Copyright © 2014Valerie Epps
All Rights Reserved
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Epps, Valerie, 1943-International law / Valerie Epps. -- Fifth edition.
pages cmIncludes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-61163-228-6 (alk. paper)1. International law. I. Title.
KZ1242.E67 2013341--dc23
2013027254
Carolina Academic Press700 Kent Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701Telephone (919) 489-7486
Fax (919) 493-5668www.cap-press.com
Printed in the United States of America
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page iv
For all my students, past and future, in the hopeand belief that the development of a just systemof international law can contribute to a better
world for everyone.
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page v
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page vi
Contents
Table of Cases xvAcknowledgments xxvPreface to the Fifth Edition xxviiElectronic Research Resources for International Law xxix
Introduction 3What Is It? 3Traditional Definition 3
Chapter I · Sources of International Law 5Who Makes Up International Law? The Doctrine of Sources 5
Custom 5The Paquete Habana 6Note: The Relationship of International Law to Domestic
(National) Law 11Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc. 12
Regional Custom 21Special or Local Custom 21Jus Cogens 22
Treaties 23North Sea Continental Shelf Cases 24
General Principles of Law 29Judicial Decisions 30Writers and Scholars 31
Concluding Remarks 31Suggested Further Readings 32
Chapter II · Title to Territory 33Terra Nullius 33Discovery 34Occupation 34
Island of Palmas (Miangas) Case 34Note: Critical Date 42Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge 43Note: Effectivités 47
Conquest 47Cession 49Prescription 49
vii
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page vii
The Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas Dispute 49Uti Possidetis 53Accretion and Avulsion 54The Arctic 54The Antarctic 55Celestial Bodies and Space 55
Problem 56Suggested Further Readings 57
Chapter III · The Law of Treaties 59What Is a Treaty? Definition 59Capacity to Conclude a Treaty 60Ratification 60
Internal Ratification: U.S. Procedure 60International Ratification 61
Reservations 61Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide 62Problems 68Note: Treaties Creating Jus Cogens Customary Norms and the Right
to Bring a Legal Claim under Such a Treaty 68Entry into Force 69Observance and Application of Treaties 70Interpretation of Treaties 70
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals 71Problem 85
Invalidity 86Error 86Fraud and Corruption 87Coercion 87Conflict with a Peremptory Norm (Jus Cogens) 88
Termination and Suspension 88Material Breach 88
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of SouthAfrica in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding SecurityCouncil Resolution 276 (1970) 89
Supervening Impossibility of Performance 91Fundamental Change of Circumstances 91
Gabcíkovo- Nagymaros Project 92Procedure for Termination 97
State Succession in Respect of Treaties 98Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide 98The Effect of War on Treaties 101
Techt v. Hughes 101The Effect of War on Human Rights Treaties 105
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OccupiedPalestinian Territory 105
Suggested Further Readings 106
viii Contents
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page viii
Chapter IV · Jurisdiction 107The Territorial Principle 107
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America 109The Nationality Principle 111The Passive Personality Principle 112
United States v. Fawaz Yunis, a/k/a Nazeeh 112The Protective Principle 116
United States v. Bin Laden 117The Universality Principle 121
Attorney General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann 122Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 129
Extradition 134United States v. Humberto Alvarez- Machain 135Problem 144
Immunity from Jurisdiction 144Diplomatic Immunity 144
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran 146Knab v. Republic of Georgia 151Armed Activities on the Territory of The Congo 155
Consular Immunity 157Head of State and Other Ministers’ Immunity 158
Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for theMetropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet 158
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 170Immunity for International Organizations 177Sovereign/State Immunity 177
Absolute Theory 177The Restrictive Theory 178
Letter Addressed to Acting Attorney General Philip B. Perlman fromthe Department of State’s Acting Legal Adviser, Jack B. Tate,May 19, 1952 179
The Act of State Doctrine 182Sovereign Immunity Required in National Courts in Certain Cases 183
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State 184Problem 188
Suggested Further Readings 189
Chapter V · The Law of the Sea 191Introduction 191Internal Waters 192Bays 192
Historic Bays 194The Territorial Sea 194
Measuring the Territorial Sea 196Powers of the Coastal State in the Territorial Sea and Foreign Ships’ Right
of Innocent Passage 196United States v. Conroy, United States v. Walker 199
Archipelagos 203International Straits 204
Contents ix
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page ix
Definition of an International Strait 205Customary Law 205Corfu Channel Case 205
Treaty Law 206The Contiguous Zone 207The Exclusive Economic Zone 209
Rights Exercised in the Exclusive Economic Zone 210Coastal States’ Rights 210Foreign States’ Rights 210
The Continental Shelf 211Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between States with Opposite
or Adjacent Coasts 212The High Seas 213The Deep Sea Bed 214
The Deep Sea Bed Regime under the 1982 Convention 215The Deep Sea Bed Regime under the 1994 Agreement 216
Settlement of Maritime Disputes 216Marine Pollution 216Fishing 218Jurisdiction over Vessels 219
Nationality of Vessels 219The Genuine Link Requirement 219Remedy Where There Is No Genuine Link 220
Prohibited Activities on the High Seas 221United States v. Garcia 223
Jurisdiction over Foreign Vessels 226Internal Waters and Ports 226
Wildenhus’ Case 226The Territorial Sea 228The Right of Hot Pursuit 229
The M/V “Saiga” Case 230Fishing on the High Seas 247
Problem 247Suggested Further Readings 249
Chapter VI · International Environmental Law 251State Responsibility for Environmental Harm 251Establishing the Standard for State Responsibility 252
Customary Law 252The Corfu Channel Case (Merits) 252Trail Smelter Case 255
Declarations and Treaty Law 257Hazardous Waste 258Atmosphere, Ozone and Climate 259Nature, Flora, Fauna and Other Resources 259Nuclear Fallout 260Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 262Other Regimes 265
x Contents
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page x
Environmental Guiding Principles 265The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Principle 265The Precautionary Principle 266The Principle of Intergenerational Equity 267The Principle of Sustainable Development 267The Polluter Pays Principle 268The Principle of Differentiated Responsibilities for Developed
and Developing States 268Conclusion 269Suggested Further Readings 270
Chapter VII · International Legal Personality: States, InternationalOrganizations, Non- State Groups, Individuals, andMulti- National Corporations 271
The Definition of a State 271A Defined Territory 271A Permanent Population 272A Government 272Capacity to Enter into Relations with Other States 273
Secession and Self- Determination 274Reference re Secession of Quebec 274
State Responsibility 285A State’s Capacity to Bring International Claims on Behalf of Individuals 286
Nationality of the Claimant 286Nottebohm Case 287
International Organizations 292 Inter- Governmental Organizations 292
The United Nations 292Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations 293Structure of the United Nations 301
Non- Governmental International Organizations 304 Non- State Groups 305
Protected Groups 305 Non- State Actors 305International Status of Individuals 306 Multi- National Corporations 307Suggested Further Readings 308
Chapter VIII · Human Rights 309Introduction 309Human Rights in the United Nations System 310
The United Nations Charter 310The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 311The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 313
Rights and Freedoms under the Civil and Political Rights Covenant 313States’ Rights to Derogate from Guaranteed Rights and Freedoms 313
Contents xi
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xi
Enforcement of Rights and Freedoms under the Civil and PoliticalRights Covenant 314
Optional Protocols to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 315El Hagog v. Libya 315Llantoy Huamán v. Peru 322
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 327Rights and Freedoms under the Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights Covenant 328Enforcement of Rights and Freedoms under the Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights Covenant 328The United Nations Human Rights Council 330The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 330United Nations Conventions on Specific Topics of Human Rights 331
Regional Human Rights Systems 334The European Human Rights System 334
The European Convention 334Case of Leyla Şahin v. Turkey 335Other European Human Rights Conventions 354
The Inter- American System 354Rights Protected by the American Convention on Human Rights 354Enforcement Mechanisms under the American Convention
on Human Rights 355The Inter-American Commission 355The Inter-American Court of Human Rights 357
Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile 357The African System 370
The African Charter 370The Community Court of Justice for ECOWAS (Economic
Community of West African States) 371League of Arab States 372The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) 372The Association of South- East Asian Nations (ASEAN) 373The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Eurasian
Economic Community 373Enforcement of Human Rights in National (Domestic) Courts 374
Self- Execution of Treaties 374Negusie v. Holder 375
Suggested Further Readings 382
Chapter IX · The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: Arbitrationand International Courts 383
The Obligation to Settle Disputes 383Arbitration 383International Courts 385
The Permanent Court of International Justice 385The International Court of Justice 385
The Composition of the Court 385
xii Contents
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xii
The Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice inContentious Cases 386
Norwegian Loans 390Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua 393Jurisdiction Forum Prorogatum 402The Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in
Advisory Cases 402The Power of the International Court of Justice to Issue Interim
Measures of Protection 402Other Major International Courts 403
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 403The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 405The International Criminal Court 406The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 406
Conclusion 406Suggested Further Readings 407
Chapter X · The Use of Force Including War 409Introduction 409The Modern Era 410
Coercive Measures Not Amounting to Armed Force 410Retorsions 410Reprisals Not Involving the Use of Armed Force 410
Pre- 1945 Law on the Use of Armed Force 411The Customary Law of Self- Defence 412The Caroline Incident 412
Post- 1945 Law 413The United Nations Charter Law 413The Meaning of “Force” 414What Is a Threat of Force? 414Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 415Must Force be Used for a Particular Object to Violate Article 2(4)? 416Exceptions to Article 2(4) 416
Self-Defence 416Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua 417Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 425Oil Platforms 426
Preemption 430Reprisals Using Force 430
The Rule of Non- Intervention 431Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua 433Civil Wars and the Rule of Non-Intervention 439Intervention in Particular Circumstances 440
Intervening to Protect Nationals Abroad 440Humanitarian Intervention 441The Responsibility to Protect 442
The Security Council’s Power to Intervene 443Article 41 Measures 443
Contents xiii
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xiii
Article 42 Measures 444United Nations Peacekeeping Forces 445
Jus In Bello 446Regulation of the Conduct of Hostilities and Humanitarian Law 446
The Geneva Conventions 447The Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovíc 450The Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba 465
Weapons Control 472Nuclear Weapons 474
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 477Suggested Further Readings 499
Treaty Index 501General Assembly Resolutions Index 507Security Council Resolutions Index 509General Index 511
xiv Contents
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xiv
Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2dCir. 2009), 12–20, 31
Accordance with International Law of theUnilateral Declaration of Independencein Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opin-ion, 2010 I.C.J. 403 (July 22), 284–285
Affaire Kervanci v. France, European Courtof Human Rights (2008), 353
Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F.Supp. 516 (D.D.C.1987), 152
Aikins (U.S. v.), 946 F.2d 608 (9th Cir.1990), 225
Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985),137
Air Services Agreement Case, (France v.U.S.), 18 R.I.A.A. 416 (1978), 411
Aluminum Co. of America (U.S. v.), 148F.2d 415 (2d Cir. 1945), 109–110, 120
Alvarez-Machain (U.S. v.), 504 U.S. 655(1992), 116, 135–144, 374
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (U.K. v.Norway), 1951 I.C.J. 116, 196, 203
Application of the Convention on the Pre-vention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v.Yugoslavia), 1999 I.C.J. 595, 2007 I C.J.43, 45, 98–101, 402
Application of the Convention on the Pre-vention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovinav. Serbia & Montenegro), 2007 I.C.J.43, 44, 101, 387
Armed Activities on the Territory of theCongo (D.R.C. v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J.168, 106, 155–156
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (D. R.C.v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3, 129–134,170–177
Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru) 1950 I.C.J.266, 21
Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Inter-American Court of Human Rights(2012), 357–369
ATSI, Commc’ns, Inc., v. Shaar Fund Ltd.,493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007), 14
Attorney General of the Government ofIsrael v. Eichmann, Judgment ofSupreme Court of Israel, May 29, 1962,116, 122–128, 134, 163, 176
Australia v. France, see Nuclear Tests CasesAvena Case (Mexico v. United States), 2004I.C.J. 12, 71–82, 129, 144, 157, 158,292
Ballinger (U.S. v.) 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir.2005), 224
Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376U.S. 398 (1964), 183
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544(2007), 14
Belgium (Democratic Republic of Congov. ), see Arrest Warrant Case
Benitez (U.S. v.), 741 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir.1984), 115, 119, 120
Bin Laden (U.S. v.), 92 F.Supp.2d (S.D.N.Y.2000), 110–114, 117–121, 131
Birch (U.S. v.), 470 F.2d 808 (4th Cir.), 116Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia, 1996I.C.J. 595, 98–101, 402
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia andMontenegro, 2007 I.C.J. 43, 44, 101,387
xv
Table of Cases
Bold type indicates that the whole case or a large excerpt of the case appears in the text.
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xv
Botswana v. Namibia, see Kasikili/SeduduIsland
Bowman (U.S. v.), 260 U.S. 94 (1922), 115,118, 119, 120
Boznia & Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia& Montenegro), see Application of theConvention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of Genocide
Brandt (U.S. v.), 2 Trials of War Criminalsbefore the Nuremberg MilitaryTribunal Under Control Council No.10, 181 (1949), 16, 17
Burkina Faso v. Mali, see Frontier DisputeBurkina Faso v. Niger, see Frontier DisputeCadena (U.S. v.), 585 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir.
1978), 201Cameroon v. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea
intervening, 2002 I.C.J. 303, 12, 213Cambodia v. Thailand, see Temple of Preah
VihearCampa (U.S. v.), 419 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.
2005) rev’d en banc, 529 F.3d 980 (11thCir. 2008), cert. den. 557 U.S. 904(2009), 199
Canada v. U.S., see Gulf of Maine AreaCase
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S.677 (1979), 141
Caroline Incident, 2 Moore, Dig. of Int’lLaw 412 (1906)(not a case), 412–413
Caro-Quintero (U.S. v.), 745 F. Supp. 599(C.D. Cal. 1990), 135, 140
Carrera v. Carrera, 174 F.2d 496 (D.C.Cir.1949), 152
Casado Coco v. Spain, Judgment of 24 Feb.1994, Series A. No. 285-A, 346
Certain Expenses of the United NationsCase, 1962 I.C.J. 151, 446
Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance inCriminal Matters (Djibouti v. France),2008 I.C.J. 177, 402
Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France, ECHR(2000), 350
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC., 467 U.S.837 (1984), 379
Chindawongse (U.S. v.) 771 F.2d 840 (4thCir. 1985), 158
Chorzów Factory Case, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser.A) No. 9, 30, 78, 79, 175, 245
Church v. Hubbart, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 187(1804), 207, 208
Clipperton Island Case (France v. Mexico)reprinted at 26 Amer. J. Int’l L. 390(1932), 384
Colombia v. Peru, 1950 I.C.J. 266, 384Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in
Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929(D.C. Cir. 1988), 115
Congo v. Belgium, see Arrest Warrant of11 April 2000
Conroy (U.S. v.) & Walker (U.S. v.), 589F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1979), 199–203,230
Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia v. Libya),1982 I.C.J. 18, 194, 212
Continental Shelf Case (Libya v. Malta),1985 I.C.J. 13, 212, 481
Convention on Consular Relations case,see Paraguay v. U.S.
Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Albania), 1949I.C.J. 4, 184, 205–206, 252–254, 400,402, 432, 433, 484
Davis (U.S. v.), 905 F.2d 245 (9th Cir.1990), 225
De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium,Judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A,No. 12, 346
Delimitation of the Maritime Areasbetween Canada and France (St. Pierreand Miquelon), reprinted at 31 I.L.M.1149 (1992), 213
Delimitation of the Maritime Border in theGulf of Maine Area (Canada v. U.S.)1984 I.C.J. 246, 214, 386, 387
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundarybetween Bangladesh and Myanmar inthe Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v.Myanmar), 2012 ITLOS, 212, 213
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundarybetween Guinea and Guinea-Bissau,reprinted at 25 I.L.M. 252 (1986), 213
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571 (6thCir. 1985), 163
Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium,see Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000
Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda,see Armed Activities on the Territoryof the Congo
xvi Table of Cases
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xvi
Denmark v. Norway, see Legal Status ofEastern Greenland
Denmark v. Norway, see Maritime Delim-itation in the Area Between Greenlandand Jan Mayen
Dogru v. France, European Court ofHuman Rights (2008), 353
Dralle v. Republic of Czechoslovakia,Supreme Court of Austria, (1950) Int’lL. Rep. 155 (H. Lauterpacht ed.), 179
Eastern Greenland Case, see Legal Statusof Eastern Greenland
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995I.C.J. 90, 284
EEOC v. Arabian Oil Co, 499 U.S. 244(1991), 118
Eichmann Case, see Attorney General ofthe Government of Israel v. Eichmann
Einsatzgruppen Case, Trial of Otto Ohe-lendorf et al., Trials of War Criminalsbefore the Nuremberg Military Tri-bunals Under Control Council LawNo. 11, vol. IV, 463
El Hagog v. Libya, Human Rights Com-mittee (2012), 315–322
El Salvador v. Honduras, see Land, Islandand Maritime Frontier Dispute
ELSI Case (U.S. v. Italy), 1989 I.C.J. 15,386
Erdemovíc, see Prosecutor v. Drazen Erde-movíc
Ex-King Farouk of Egypt v. Christian Dior,24 I.L.R. 288 (1957), 166
Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276(1933), 138
Factory at Chorzow, see Chorzow FactoryCase
Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lessee, 11 U.S.(7 Cranch) 603 (1813), 374
Fawaz Yunis, a/k/a Nazeeh (U.S. v.), 924F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991), 112–116
Federal Trade Commission v. Compagniede Saint-Gabain-Pont-a-Mousson 636F.2d 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1980), 115
Fedorenko v. U.S., 449 U.S. 490 (1981),376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2dCir. 1980), 14
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Jurisdiction)(U.K. v. Iceland), 1973 I.C.J. 63, 97
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Merits) (U.K.v. Iceland), 1974 I.C.J. 3, 209
Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003), 14, 15, 17,18, 20
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470U.S. 729 (1985), 378
Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949),115, 118
Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698 (1893),103
Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253(1828), 374
France v. Norway, see Norwegian LoansFrance v. Turkey, see Lotus CaseFrontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali)
1986 I.C.J. 554, 53, 386Frontier Dispute (Bukina Faso v. Niger),
2013 I.C.J. ___, 53Frontier Dispute (Benin v. Niger), 2005
I.C.J. 90, 386Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952), 136,
137, 140Furundzija, see Prosecutor v. FurundzijaGabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungaryv. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7, 92–97, 98
Garcia (U.S. v.), 182 Fed. Appx. 873 (11thCir. 2006), 223–225
Germany v. Denmark, see North Sea Con-tinental Shelf Cases
Germany v. Netherlands, see North SeaContinental Shelf Cases
Germany v. U.S., see LaGrand CaseGonzales, v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006)
(per curiam), 378Gonzalez (U.S. v.), 776 F.2d 931 (11th Cir.
1985), 225Governo degli Stati Uniti di America c. Soc.
I.R.S.A. [1963] Foro Ital. 1405, 47 Re-vista de Diritto Internazionale 484(May 13, 1963), 182
Gulf of Maine Area Case (Canada v. U.S.)1984 I.C.J. 246, 212, 386, 387
Hatch v. Baez, 7 Hun. 596 (1876), 167Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884),
103
Table of Cases xvii
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xvii
Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Moore, 345 F.2d 978(D.C. Cir. 1965), 153
Herero Peoples’ Reparation Corp. v.Deutsche Bank, A.G., 370 F.3d 1192(D.C. Cir. 2004), 225
Hernandez (U.S. v.), 106 F.Supp. 2d 1317(S.D. Fla. 2000), 199
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), 9Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan, 12 Int’l
Hum. Rt. Rep. 345 (2005), 353Hungary v. Slovakia, see Gabcíkovo-Nagy-maros Project
Humberto Alvarez-Machain (U.S. v.), seeU.S. v. Alvarez-Machain
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415(1999), 378, 379
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421(1987), 377, 378, 379
Israeli/Palestinian Wall Case, see LegalConsequences of the Construction ofa Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-ritory
Iran Hostages Case, see U.S. Diplomaticand Consular Staff in Tehran
Iran v. U.S., see Oil PlatformsItaly (Gentini) v. Venezuela, Mixed Claims
Commission, 1903, 30Island of Palmas (Miangas) Case (Nether-lands v. U.S.) 2 U.N. Rep. Int’l ArbitralAwards 829 (1928), 34–42, 45, 52
Jimenez v. Aristeguiete, 311 F.2d 547 (5thCir. 1962), 167
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State(Germany v. Italy, Greece intervening),2012 I.C.J. ___, 22,184–187
Kadic v. Karadzíc, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995), 14
Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v.Namibia), 1999 I.C.J. 1045, 54, 70
Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886), 136,137, 138, 139, 140, 143
Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank, Ltd.,504 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2007) (per cu-riam), 15
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al.,133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013), 21
Knab v. Republic of Georgia, (D.D.C.1998), 151–154
LaGrand Case (Germany v. U.S), 2001I.C.J. 466, 71, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 82,89, 129, 144, 158, 292, 403
Land and Maritime Boundary betweenCameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea intervening)2002 I.C.J. 303, 12, 71, 213
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute(El Salvador v. Honduras, Nicaraguaintervening) 1990 I.C.J. 92 & 1992I.C.J. 351 & 2003 I.C.J. 392, 53, 212,386
Larsen (U.S. v.), 952 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir.1991), 119
Legal Consequences for States of the Con-tinued Presence of South Africa inNamibia (South West Africa) Notwith-standing Security Council Resolution276, Advisory Opinion, 1971 I.C.J. 16,89–91, 284
Legal Consequences of the Constructionof a Wall in the Occupied PalestinianTerritory, Advisory Opinion, 2004I.C.J. 136, 48, 105–106, 446
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, (Den-mark v. Norway) 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser.A/B) No. 53 at 194 (April 5), 45, 47,59
Legality of the Threat or Use of NuclearWeapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996I.C.J. 226, 31, 105, 130, 257, 262–264,415–416, 425–426, 431, 474, 477–497
Legality of Use of Force, (Yugoslavia v.Spain), 1999 I.C.J. 761; (Yugoslavia v.U.S.), 1999 I.C.J. 916; (Serbia andMontenegro v. Belgium), 2004 I.C.J.279; (Serbia and Montenegro v.Canada), 2004 I.C.J. 429; (Serbia andMontenegro v. France), 2004 I.C.J.575; (Serbia and Montenegro v. Ger-many), 2004 I.C.J. 720; (Serbia andMontenegro v. Italy), 2004 I.C.J. 865;(Serbia and Montenegro v. Nether-lands), 2004 I.C.J. 1011; (Serbia andMontenegro v. Portugal), 2004 I.C.J.1160; (Serbia and Montenegro v.United Kingdom), 2004 I.C.J. 1307,442
xviii Table of Cases
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xviii
Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, European Court ofHuman Rights (2005), 335–353
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad, 1994 I.C.J.6, 70
Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, see NottebohmCase
Llantoy Huamán v. Peru, Human RightsCommittee (2005), 322–327
Logan v. Dupuis, 990 F.Supp. 26 (D.D.C.1997), 153
Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J.(ser. A) No. 10, 123, 226
MacAllister (U.S. v.), 160 F.3d 1304 (11thCir. 1998), 120
Malaysia v. Singapore, 2008 I.C.J. 12, 30,43–46, 49, 52
Mandla v. Dowell, [1983] All E. Rep. 548,343
Marino-Garcia (U.S. v.), 679 F.2d 1373(11th Cir. 1982), 225
Maritime Delimitation and TerritorialQuestions (Qatar v. Bahrain), 1995I.C.J. 6, 71
Maritime Delimitation in the Area betweenGreenland and Jan Mayen (Denmarkv. Norway) 1993 I.C.J. 38, 213
Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea(Romania v. Ukraine), 2009 I.C.J. 61,213
Martinez-Hidalgo (U.S. v.), 993 F.2d 1052(3d Cir. 1993), 225
Masetti Case, decision of 17 Nov. 1947 inMassimario della Seconda della Cas-sazione, 1947 No. 2569, 458
Maul v. U.S., 274 U.S. 501 (1927), 201, 202McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de
Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10(1963), 120
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), 14,83, 84, 374, 375
Mexico v. United States, see Avena CaseMexico v. U.S., 2009 I.C.J. 3, 83Metropolitan Church of Bessarbia and Oth-
ers v. Moldova, ECHR (2001), 350Military and Paramilitary Activities in andAgainst Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.),1984 I.C.J. 392, and 1986 I.C.J. 14, 44,48, 184, 385, 393–401, 414, 417–424,426, 427, 428, 429, 433–439
Mine Workers (U.S. v.), 330 U.S. 258(1947), 143
Mol Inc. v. People’s Republic ofBangladesh, 736 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir.1984), 182
Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in1943 Case, 1954 I.C.J. 19, 398
Mora v. People of the State of N.Y., 524F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2008), 15
Moreno-Morillo (U.S. v.), 334 F.3d 819(9th Cir. 2003), 225
Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy,6 U.S. 64 (1804), 115
Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. BrandX Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967(2005), 378
Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009),375–381, 464
Netherlands v. U.S., see Island of Palmas(Miangas) Case
New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767(1998), 54
New Zealand v. France, see Nuclear TestsCases
Nicaragua v. U.S., see Military and Para-military Activities In and AgainstNicaragua
Nicaragua v. Colombia, see Territorial andMaritime Dispute
Nicaragua v. Honduras, see Territorial andMaritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (FederalRepublic of Germany v. Denmark)(Federal Republic of Germany v.Netherlands) 1969 I.C.J. 3, 24–29, 30,185, 212, 375, 435
Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S.197 (1904), 143
Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway) 1957I.C.J. 9, 389, 390–392
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v.Guatemala), 1955 I.C.J. 4, 157, 188,221, 287–291
Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France),1974 I.C.J. 253, 59, 260, 261, 489;(New Zealand v. France), 1974 I.C.J.457, 260, 261, 266, 267
Nuclear Weapons Case, see Legality of theThreat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
Table of Cases xix
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xix
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v.United States) 2003 I.C.J. 161, 220,426–430
Odeh (U.S. v.), 548 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2008),121
Olympic Airways v. Husain 504 U.S. 644(2004), 84
Orozco-Prada (U.S. v.), 732 F.2d 1076 (2dCir. 1984), 119
Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece, ECHR(2005), 350
Pacific & Arctic R. & Navigation Co. (U.S.v.), 228 U.S. 87 (1913), 110
Palestinian /Israeli Wall Case, see LegalConsequences of the Construction ofa Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-ritory
Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), 6–10, 11, 31, 202, 375
Paraguay v. U.S. 1998 I.C.J. 248 (InterimProtection Order of Apr. 9), 82
Phillips v. Eyre [1871] L.R. 6 Q.B. 1, 123Pinochet Case, see Regina v. Bartle and theCommissioner for the Metropolis andothers Ex Parte Pinochet
Pizzarusso (U.S. v.), 388 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.1968), 119, 120
Portugal v. India, see Right of Passage CaseProsecutor v. Dusko Tadic�, Decision on
the Defense Motion for IntercutoryAppeal on Jurisdiction, 1995 I.C.T.Y.No. IT-94-1-AR 72 reprinted at 35I.L.M. 32 (1996), Opinion and Judg-ment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, reprintedat 36 I.L.M. 908 (1997), 404, 405
Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. 17-95-17/1-T (Judgment of the TrialChamber, 10 Dec. 1998), 22, 163
Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovíc, 1997I.C.T.Y. No. IT-96-22, 381, 405, 450–464
Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba, 2005 I.C.T.R.No. 01-76-T, 405, 465–472
Qatar v. Bahrain, 1995 I.C.J. 6, 71Quebec Secession, see Reference reSecession of Quebec
Queen v. Griffiths [1891] 2 Q.B., 145, 123Questions Relating to the Obligation to
Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v.
Senegal), 2012 I.C.J. ___, 22, 68, 69,88, 121
Rauscher (U.S. v.), 119 U.S. 407 (1886),136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143
Reference re Secession of Quebec, 2 S.C.R.217 (1998), 11, 274–284, 305
Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner forthe Metropolis and others Ex PartePinochet, House of Lords, U.K., (1999)2 A11 E. R. 97, 11, 131, 158–169, 176,184
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D.273 (1884), 463
Regina (On the Application of Begum) v.Headteacher and Governors ofDenbigh High School ([2004] EWHC1389 (Admin)), 344
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), 200Rendon (U.S. v.), 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.
2003), 225Reparations for Injuries Suffered in theService of the United Nations,Advisory Opinion, 1949 I.C.J. 174,293–300
Request for Interpretation of Judgment of31 March 2004 (Mexico v. U.S.) 2009I.C.J. 3, 12, 83–84
Reservations to the Convention on the Pre-vention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 1951I.C.J. 15, 61, 62–67, 100
Request for an Examination of the Situationin Accordance with Paragraph 63 ofthe Court’s Judgment of 20 December1974 in the Nuclear Tests (NewZealand v. France), 1995 I.C.J. 288,261, 264, 266
Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Inter-Amer-ican Court of Human Rights (2012),357–369
Right of Passage Case, (Portugal v. India)1960 I.C.J. 6, 22
Rights of Minorities in Polish Upper Silesia(Germany v. Poland), 1928 P.C.I.J.(ser. A) No. 15, 402
Romania v. Ukraine, see Maritime Delim-itation in the Black Sea
Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198 (2d Cir.2008), 14
xx Table of Cases
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xx
Şahin v. Turkey, European Court of HumanRights (2005), 335–353
Saiga Case, see The M/V “Saiga” CaseSale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S.
155 (1993), 118Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S.
(7 Cranch) 116 (1812), 177Secession, Quebec, see Reference re Seces-sion of Quebec
Serif v. Greece, ECHR (1999), 347, 350Simba, see Prosecutor v. Aloys SimbaSisal Sales Corp. (U.S. v.), 274 U.S. 268
(1927), 110Smith v. U.S., 507 U.S. 197 (1993), 118Smith and Grady v. U.K., ECHR (1999),
351Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692
(2004), 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 143, 144Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau BatuPateh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge(Malaysia v. Singapore) 2008 I.C.J. 12,30, 43–46, 49, 52
St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea,see The M/V “Saiga” Case
S.S. I’m Alone Case, III U.N.R.I.A.A. 1609(1935), 244
Stalag Luft III Case, XI Law Reports 33,462
Stanely (U.S. v.), 483 U.S. 669 (1987), 18Tabion v. Mufti, 73 F.3d 535 (4th Cir.
1996), 145Tadic Case, see Prosecutor v. Dusko TadicTaveras v. Taveraz, 477 F.3d 767 (6th Cir.
2007), 14Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222 (1920), 101–
104Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai-
land), 1962 I.C.J. 6, 30, 86, 403Territorial and Maritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia), 2012 I.C.J.___, 42, 47, 53
Territorial and maritime Dispute betweenNicaragua and Honduras in theCaribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Hon-duras), 2007 I.C.J. 659, 42, 47
Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriyav. Chad), 1994 I.C.J. 6, 70
The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362(1824), 142
The Land and Maritime Boundary betweenCameroon and Nigeria, EquatorialGuinea intervening), 2002 I.C.J. 303,12, 71, 213
The Caroline Incident, 2 Moore, Dig. ofInt’l Law 412 (1906)(not a case), 412–413
The Lotus Case, (France v. Turkey), 1927P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10, 123, 226
The M/V/ “Saiga” Case (Saint Vincent andthe Grenadines v. Guinea), 1999ITLOS No. 2, 209, 210, 221, 230–246
The Nottebohm Case, see Nottebohm CaseThe Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900),
6–10, 11, 31, 202, 375The Red Crusader, 35 I.L.R. 485 (1917),
244The Richmond, 13 U.S. 102 (1815), 203The Saiga Case, see The M/V “Saiga” CaseThe Schooner Charming Betsy (Murray
v.), 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804), 115The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11
U.S. 116 (1812), 177The Sunday Times v. U.K. (No. 1) Judge-
ment of 26 April 1979, Series A, No.30, 346
Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U.S. 66 (1917),110
Trail Smelter Case (U.S. v. Canada), 3 U.N.Rep. Int’l Arbitral Awards 1938 (1941),255–256, 259
U.K. v. Albania, see Corfu Channel CaseUnited Communist Party of Turkey and
Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 30 Jan.1998, Rep. 1998-I, 347
U.K. v. Iceland, see Fisheries JurisdictionCase
U.S. v. Aikins, 946 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1990),225
U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d416 (2d Cir. 1945), 109–110, 120
U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 665(1992), 116, 135–144, 374
U.S. v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir.2005), 224
U.S. v. Benitez, 741 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir.1984),115, 119, 120
U.S. v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d (S.D.N.Y.2000), 117–121, 131
Table of Cases xxi
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxi
U.S. v. Birch, 470 F.2d 808 (4th Cir. 1972),116
U.S. v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922), 115,118, 119, 120
U.S. v. Brandt, 2 Trials of War CriminalsBefore the Nuremberg MilitaryTribunal Under Control Council No.10 181 (1949), 16, 17
U.S. v. Cadena, 585 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir.1978), 201
U.S. v. Campa, 419 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.2005) rev’d en banc, 529 F.3d 980 (11thCir. 2008), cert. den., 557 U.S. 904(2009), 199
U.S. v. Canada, see Trail Smelter CaseU.S. v. Caro-Quintero, 745 F.Supp. 599
(C.D. Cal. 1990), 135, 140U.S. v. Chindawongse/U.S. v. Siripan, 771
F. 2d 840 (4th Cir. 1985), 158U.S. v. Conroy & U.S. v. Walker, 589 F.2d
1258 (5th Cir. 1979), 199–203, 230U.S. v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1990),
225U.S. v. Fawaz Yunis, a/k/a Nazeeh, 924 F.2d
1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991), 112–116U.S. v. Garcia, 182 Fed. Appx. 873 (11th
Cir. 2006), 223–225U.S. v. Gonzalez, 776 F.2d 931 (11th Cir.
1985), 225U.S. v. Hernandez, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1317
(S.D. Fla. 2000), 199U.S. v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, 504
U.S. 655 (1992), 116, 135–144, 374U.S. v. Larsen, 952 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir.
1991), 119U.S. v. MacAllister, 160 F.3d 1304 (11th
Cir. 1998), 120U.S. v. Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d 1373 (11th
Cir. 1982), 225U.S. v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052
(3d Cir. 1993), 225U.S. v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947),
143U.S. v. Moreno-Morillo, 334 F.3d 819 (9th
Cir. 2003), 225U.S. v. Odeh, 548 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2008),
121U.S. v. Orozo-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076 (2d
Cir. 1984), 119
U.S. v. Pacific & Arctic R. & NavigationCo., 228 U.S. 87 (1913), 110
U.S. v. Pizzarusso, 388 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.1968), 119, 120
U.S. v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (1886), 136,137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143
U.S. v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.2003), 225
U.S. v. Sisal Sales Corp., 274 U.S. 268(1927), 110
U.S. v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987), 18U.S. v. Vasquez-Velasco, 15 F.3d 833 (9th
Cir. 1994), 120U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F.2d 1341
(9th Cir. 1991), 135, 137, 138, 141U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259
(1990), 199U.S. v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.
1978), 200U.S. v. Wright-Barker, 784 F.2d 167 (3d
Cir. 1986), 119U.S. v. Yousef, 317 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2008),
15U.S. v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir.
1991), 112–116, 120U.S. v. Zehe, 601 F. Supp. 196 (D.Mass.
1985), 119U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff inTehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3,146–151, 157, 399, 400
Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S.5 (1936), 137, 138
Vasquez-Velasco (U.S. v.), 15 F.3d 833 (9thCir. 1994), 120
Verdugo-Urquidez (U.S. v.), 939 F.2d 1341(9th Cir. 1991), 135, 137, 138, 141
Verdugo-Urquidez (U.S. v.), 494 U.S. 259(1990), 199
Victory Transport, Inc. v. ComisariaGeneral de Abastecimiento y Trans-portes, 336 F.2d 354 (2d Cir. 1964),181, 182
Vietnam Ass’n for Victims of Agent Orangev. Dow Chemical Co., 517 F.3d 104(2d Cir. 2008), 15
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 198 (1796),374
Warren (U.S. v.), 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.1978), 200
xxii Table of Cases
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxii
Western Sahara Case, 1975 I.C.J. 12 (Ad-visory Opinion), 34
Wildenhus’ Case, 120 U.S. 1 (1887), 226–227, 228
Wright-Barker (U.S. v.), 784 F.2d 167 (3dCir. 1986), 119
Yousef (U.S. v.), 317 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2008),15
Yunis (U.S. v.), 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir.1991), 112–116, 120
Zehe (U.S. v.), 601 F.Supp. 196 (D.Mass.1985), 119
Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516U.S. 217 (1996), 380
Table of Cases xxiii
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxiii
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxiv
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the President and Trustees of Suffolk University who granted mea sabbatical leave, without which this book would never have been completed. The LegalStudies Department at Brandeis University kindly allowed me to test out the text in aninternational law course. My students at Suffolk University Law School have been a sourceof much inspiration and proved a spur to develop better materials for teaching. Myresearch assistants, Tracy Devlin, Kristine Hung, Frank Maniscalco, Halim Moris, andMaureen Pomeroy have all been diligent, prompt, and creatively cheerful. Joan Comertyped, retyped, and then repeated that process many times, always with speed and muchgrace and Patricia McLaughlin provided excellent secretarial assistance throughout theoriginal project. To them all I owe a great debt. The second edition would not have beencompleted without the efficiency, grace and calming influence of Mishell Fortes whocorrected, changed and inserted all the additions to the new edition. In working on thethird edition I was aided by Rita Mercardo, my research assistant, and by the ever patientand tireless Mishell Fortes. The fourth edition, once again, was only possible with thedetailed and meticulous help of Mishell Fortes. For the fifth edition I would like to addmy thanks to my current faculty assistant, Danielle LaVita.
xxv
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxv
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxvi
xxvii
International Law
Fifth Edition
Preface
The purpose of this book is to introduce students, with little legal training, to thestudy of public international law. Within North America law is normally taught at thegraduate level in a professional law school. Yet there is a long and honorable tradition ofteaching international law at the undergraduate or postgraduate level, particularly withinthe larger framework of international relations, generally in departments of governmentor political science. Throughout most of the rest of the world, law, including internationallaw, is taught at the undergraduate level.
The need for a book specifically designed for students with limited legal knowledgebecame apparent to me when I was asked to teach such a course at Brandeis University.I reviewed the available literature and, apart from the standard, narrative form introductionsto international law, there was little available. There are, of course, a number of wellknown case books, widely used in the professional law schools, which I have used formany years teaching in law schools, but all of them were both too detailed for introductorycourses and assumed a fairly large legal background. Almost invariably international lawis taught as an upper level course in law schools and the authors of texts for such coursescan reasonably count on students having a fairly comprehensive grasp of all the coresubjects of law.
I concluded that teaching a course at the undergraduate level or to graduate nonlegalspecialists required a somewhat different approach and somewhat different materials andso I set about to construct my own book. The result appears in the pages that follow. Itshould be added that these materials do not assume that such students are less able thangraduate law students to grasp difficult issues, nor does it assume that they cannot dealwith a variety of complex instruments that bear on a particular problem. Rather the bookfocusses on the central problems of international law, assumes no prior legal knowledgeexcept that gathered by living in a society organized under a legal system, and encouragesstudents to work through a number of problems that present a variety of internationalissues. The overriding aspiration of this book is that students will acquire a general un-derstanding of the mechanisms and concepts of the international legal system and thatthey will find encouragement to pursue further study of the area.
Valerie EppsProfessor of LawSuffolk University Law SchoolBoston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxvii