Suchergebnisse

"The contributions in this collection of the American Classics in International Law series, Peaceful Resolution of Disputes, edited by Lori Fisler Damrosch, present the most influential American ideas about dispute settlement. From Alexander Hamilton's 1794 defense of arbitration, through 20th-century debates over the International Court of Justice and other international courts and tribunals, to contemporary controversies over law-of-the-sea dispute settlement, American leaders and scholars have promoted perspectives on dispute resolution shaped by the American experience. An introductory essay explores American ideas about dispute resolution in relation to war, the judicial role in resolving concrete controversies under law, and problems of institutional design"--

Our moderator's questions begin with "in what sense is international law and in what sense isn't it universal?" and continue with whether international law may be "different in different places" and what the implications of such differences may be. I am here to defend the "universalist" perspective, as the immediate past president of the American Society of International Law and before that, editor-in-chief of the American Journal of International Law. Though both the Society and the Journal have "American" in their titles and our geographic headquarters is in the United States, the Society's mission statement commits us to pursue "a just world under law," which I interpret as a global vision for a universal system of international law.

The international law of sovereign immunity derives from state practice embodied in national judicial decisions and legislation. Although some U.S. Supreme Court decisions refer to this body of law using terms like "grace and comity," the customary international law of sovereign immunity is law, which national courts should consider when arriving at immunity decisions. While it would be possible for a widely followed international treaty to work changes in customary international law, the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property has not done so yet. National legislation such as the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act can precipitate changes in the international law of sovereign immunity, as can innovative lawsuits prompting national courts to reexamine theories of immunity. The International Court of Justice should refrain from interfering with the ability of national institutions to provide remedies for wrongful conduct of the type involved in Germany's suit against Italy.