Customary international law as a judicial tool for promoting efficiency

The Impact of International Law on International Cooperation: Theoretical Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 85-116

  Benvenisti, Eyal ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927115216     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511494147.004     Document Type: Chapter

References (88)

1. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, [1997] ICJ Reports 7, reprinted at www.icjcij.org/idocket/ihs/ihsjudgement/ihsjudframe1.htm; (1998) 37 ILM 167.
2. North Sea Continental Shelf (FRG v. Denmark/Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Reports 3, at para. 77.
3. opinio juris in the Lotus case (France v. Turkey), (1927) PCIJ Reports, Series A, No. 10-28:
4. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Merits, Judgment, [1986] ICJ Reports 14, at para. 207.
5. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case, note 1, at para. 86.
6. Eyal Benvenisti, SharingTransboundary Resources: International Law and Optimal Resource Use (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
7. A.E. Boyle, “The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case: New Law in Old Bottles,” (1998) 8 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 13.
8. Benvenisti, B. Sharing Transboundary Resources, ch. 7.
9. Charles B. Bourne, “The Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project: An Important Milestone in International Water Law” (1997) 8 Yb. Int’l Envt’l L. 6-11.
10. A. Dan Tarlock, “Safeguarding International River Ecosystems in Times of Scarcity” (2000) 3 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 231, 244–47.
11. David Caron, “The Frog that Wouldn’t Leap: The International Law Commission and its Work on International Watercourses” (1992) 3 Colo. J. Int’l Envt’l L. & Policy 269.
12. Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner, “A Theory of Customary International Law” (1999) 66 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1113.
13. Nico Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources (1997).
14. Robert D. Cooter, “Decentralized Law for a Complex Economy: The Structural Approach to Adjudicating the New Law Merchant” (1996) 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1643.
15. Michael Byers observed, “The customary process operates to maximise the interests of most if not all States by creating rules which protect and promote their commoninterests.” Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules (1999), p. 19.
16. Hugonis Grotii, De ivre belli ac pacis libri tres. In quibus jus naturae et gentium: item juris publici praecipua explicantur (1632).
17. David J. Bederman, “Reception of the Classical Tradition in International Law: Grotius’ de jure belli ac pacis” (1996) 10 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 1.
18. Hugo Grotius, The Freedom of the Seas (Ralph von DemanMagoffin (trans.), James Brown Scott (ed.), Oxford University Press, 1916).
19. Martin J. Osborne and Ariel Rubinstein, A Course in Game Theory (1994), p. 14.
20. Paul H. Rubin, “Why Is the Common Law Efficient?” (1977) 6 J. Legal Stud. 51.
21. John C. Goodman, “An Economic Theory of the Evolution of the Common Law” (1978) 7 J. Legal Stud. 393.
22. George L. Priest, “The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules” (1977) 6 J. Legal Stud. 65.
23. Robert Cooter and Lewis Kornhauser, “Can Litigation Improve the LawWithout the Help of Judges?”, (1980) 9 J. Legal Stud. 139.
24. Eric A. Posner, “Law, Economics, and Inefficient Norms” (1996) 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1697.
25. Cooter, C. “Decentralized Law,” 1694.
26. Eyal Benvenisti, “Collective Action in the Utilization of Shared Freshwater: The Challenges of International Water Resources Law” (1996) 90 Am. J. Int’l L. 384.
27. Eyal Benvenisti, “Exit and Voice in the Age of Globalization” (1999) 98 Mich. L. Rev. 167.
28. Eyal Benvenisti, Sharing Transboundary Resources: International Law and Optimal Resource Use (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
29. Lucius Caflisch, “Regles Generales du Droit des Cours d’Eau internationaux” (1989-7) 219 Recueil des cours 9, 32–33, 109–10.
30. Trail Smelter (United States v. Canada) (1905) 3 UN Reports of Arbitral Awards, reprinted in (1938–40) Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases 315.
31. Phillipe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law (1995), p. 191.
32. Patricia W. Birnie and Allan E. Boyle, International Law and The Environment (1992), pp. 89–90.
33. Lake Lanoux Arbitration (1957) 24 ILR 101.
34. Birnie, B. And Boyle, B. International Law, p. 130.
35. Sands, S. Principles, pp. 348–49;
36. Birnie, B. And Boyle, B. International Law, pp. 102–3.
37. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland) [1974] ICJ Reports 2.
38. R.R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea 144–46 (1988), pp. 144–46.
39. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, [1985] ICJ Reports 13, para. 34.
40. Whiteman, W. (1946) 4 Dig. Int’l L. 752.
41. H. Scott Gordon, “The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery” (1954) 62 J.Pol. Econ. 124.
42. Colin W. Clark, “RestrictedAccess toCommon-Property Fishery Resources: A Game-Theoretic Analysis” in Pan-Tai Liv (ed.), Dynamic Optimization and Mathematical Economics (1980), p. 117.
43. Yoram Barzel, Economic Analysis of Property Rights (2nd ed., 1997), pp. 101–2.
44. Gary D. Libecap, Contracting for Property Rights (1989).
45. Rainer Lagoni, “Oil and Gas Deposits Across National Frontiers” (1979) 73 Am. J. Int’l L. 215-224.
46. David M. Ong, “Joint Development of Common Offshore Oil and Gas Deposits: ‘Mere’ State Practice or Customary International Law?” (1999) 93 Am. J. Int’l L. 771-792.
47. Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration (Award Phase II: Maritime Delimitation), December 17, 1999, available at www.pca-cpa.org/ERYE2.
48. Byers, B. Custom, Power, pp. 130–33.
49. Robert Y. Jennings, “The Identification of International Law” in Bin Cheng (ed.), International Law: Teaching and Practice (Stevens, London, 1982), pp. 3-5.
50. W. Michael Reisman, “The Cult of Custom in the Late 20th Century” (1987) 17 Cal. W. Intl’L L.J. 133-134.
51. Oscar Schachter, “The Emergence of International Environmental Law” (1991) 44 J. Int’l Aff. 457, 462–63.
52. Sands, S. Principles, p. 184.
53. Bederman, B. “Reception of the Classical Tradition,” 37–39.
54. Jonathan I. Charney, “Universal International Law” (1993) 87 Am. J. Int’l L. 529, 545–46.
55. Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia (1989), pp. 270–73.
56. Thomas M. Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (1995), p. 79.
57. Ruth Lapidoth, “Equity in International Law” (1987) 22 Isr. L. Rev. 161.
58. Masahiro Miyoshi, Considerations of Equity in the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes (1993), p.173.
59. A. Alvarez, “Preliminary Communication” (1937) 40 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 151.
60. Miyoshi, M. Considerations of Equity, pp. 153–54.
61. Francisko Orrego Vicuna, The Exclusive Economic Zone (1989), pp. 211–22;
62. Prosper Weil, Perspectives du droit de la Delimitation Maritime (Paris, 1988), pp. 282–85
63. Malcolm D. Evans, Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation (Oxford, 1989), pp. 90–94.
64. Louis F. E. Goldie, “Reconciling Values of Distributive Equity and Management Efficiency in the International Commons” in Rene-Jean Dupuy (ed.), The Settlement of Disputes on the New Natural Resources (1983), pp. 335, 338–39;
65. L.D.M. Nelson, “The Roles of Equity in the Delimitation ofMaritime Boundaries” (1990) 84 Am. J. Int’l L. 837.
66. Derek W. Bowett, “The Economic Factor in Maritime Delimitation Cases” in 2 International Law at the Time of its Codification: Essays in Honour of Roberto Ago (1987), pp. 45, 61–62.
67. Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, International Boundary Cases: The Continental Shelf, vol. 1 (1992), p. 12.
68. Elihu Lauterpacht, Aspects of the Administration of International Justice (1991), pp. 124–30.
69. Weil, W. Perspectives du Droit, pp. 56–61;
70. Evans, E. Relevant Circumstances, pp. 99–103.
71. Evans, E. Relevant Circumstances, p. 186.
72. Weil, W. perspectives du droit, pp. 274–80.
73. Elihu Lauterpacht, “River Boundaries: Legal Aspects of the Shatt- Al-Arab Frontier” (1960) 9 I.C.L.Q. 216–22.
74. ILA Report of the Fifty-Second Conference (1967), pp. 484-487.
75. Bonaya A. Godana, Africa’s Shared Water Resources (1985), p. 58:
76. Gerhard Hafner, “The Optimum Utilization Principle and the Non-Navigational Uses of Drainage Basins” (1993) 45 Aust. J. Publ. Int’l L. 113, 124–26.
77. Patricia Buirette, “Genese d’un Droit Fluvial International General” (1991) 95 R.G.D.I.P. 5-38.
78. Gunther Handl, “The Principle of ‘Equitable Use’ as applied to Internationally Shared Natural Resources: Its Role in Resolving Potential International Disputes Over Transfrontier Pollution” (1978) 14 Rev. Belge de Droit International 40-46, 52–54.
79. Jerome Lipper “Equitable Utilization” in A. Garretson, R. Haydon and C. Olmstead (eds.), The Law of International Drainage Basins (1967), pp. 16, 41-45.
80. Charles Bourne, “The Right to Utilize the Waters of International Rivers” (1965) 3 Can. Yb Int’l L. 187-199.
81. William Griffin, “The Use of Waters of International Drainage Basins Under Customary International Law” (1959) 53 Am. J. Int’l L. 50, 78–79.
82. Lipper, L. “Equitable Utilization,” 44.
83. Caflisch, C. “Regles Generales,” 158–60.
84. Lipper, L. “Equitable Utilization,” 58.
85. Benvenisti, L. Sharing Transboundary Resources, ch. 7
86. Eyal Benvenisti, “Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Norms: An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts” (1993) 4 Eur. J. Int’l L. 159.
87. United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 669 n.16 (1992).
88. Eyal Benvenisti, “Exit and Voice in the Age of Globalization” (1999) 98 Mich. L. Rev. 167.