FOREIGN OFFICE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL HISTORY

Developments in International Law

Volumn 58, Issue , 2007, Pages 43-63

  Bederman, David J ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85202458648     PISSN: None     EISSN: 09245332     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (114)

1. 46 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1997) 501.
2. 46 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1997) 501-07.
3. 46 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1997) 507-11.
4. 46 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1997) 511-15.
5. 46 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1997) 515-19.
6. Simma, 'Fragmentation in a Positive Light', 25 Michigan Journal of International Law (2004) 845;
7. Hafner, 'Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law', 25 Michigan Journal of International Law (2004) 849;
8. Koskenniemi & Leino, 'Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties', 15 Leiden Journal of International Law (2002) 553.
9. This issue has even received attention by the International Law Commission. See UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.663/Rev.1 (2004);
10. Hafner, 'Risks Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law' in Report of the ILC on the Work of its Fifty-Second Session, Doc. A/55/10, 321-339, available at: .
11. Richards, 'Clio and the Court: A Reassessment of the Supreme Court's Uses of History', 13 Journal of Law and Politics (1997) 809;
12. Kleinhaus, 'Note, History as Precedent: The Post-Originalist Problem in Constitutional Law', 110 Yale Law Journal (2000) 121.
13. Flaherty, 'History 'Lite' in Modern American Constitutionalism', 95 Columbia Law Review (1995) 523.
14. Brown, 'History for the Non-Originalist', 26 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (2003) 74.
15. Flaherty, 'History for the Non-Originalist', 26 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (2003) note 8, 553
16. (quoting Powell, 'Rules for Originalists', 73 Virginia Law Review (1987) 659).
17. I acknowledge that some international law doctrines, such as the uti possidetis rule for the recognition of former Colonial-period boundaries, may have a strongly originalist flavor. In actuality, though, this doctrine may be more of a Burkean conservative streak in international law rules. As the World Court observed, 'the maintenance of the territorial status quo... is often seen as the wisest course... to avoid a disruption [and promote] the essential requirement of stability.' Frontier Dispute case, (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), ICJ Rep 1986, 554.
18. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331. Signed on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980. Art. 32.
19. Separate Opinion of Judge Spender in Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1962, 185.
20. Sloan, 'The United Nations Charter as a Constitution', 1 Pace Yearbook of International Law (1989) 61;
21. Pair, 'Judicial Activism in the ICJ Charter Interpretation', 8 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law (2001) 181.
22. Reisman, 'International Incidents: Introduction to a New Genre in the Study of International Law', 10 Yale Journal of International Law (1984) 1;
23. Willard, 'Incidents: An Essay in Method', 10 Yale Journal of International Law (1984) 21;
24. W. Michael & A.R. Willard (eds.), International Incidents: The Law that Counts in World Politics (1988).
25. 124 S. Ct. (2004) 2739.
26. 28 U.S.C. (2005) § 1350.
27. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, (Botswana/Namibia), Merits, ICJ Rep. 1999, 1045.
28. For the background facts, see United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. (1992) 657-58;
29. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. (2004) 2739, 2746 (hereinafter Sosa).
30. United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. (2004) 663-70.
31. United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. (2004) 670-88 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
32. I certainly took this position in my academic commentary. See Bederman, 'Revivalist Canons and Treaty Interpretation', 41 UCLA Law Review (1994) 982, 1010-14, 1017-19.
33. See Sosa, 'Revivalist Canons and Treaty Interpretation', 41 UCLA Law Review (1994) note 20, 2747-2754.
34. The relevant statutory provisions for the FTCA can be found at 28 U.S.C. (2005) § 2680(k).
35. See also Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. (1993) 197 ('foreign country' exception barred claims arising from Antarctica).
36. 28 U.S.C. (2005) § 1350. The original language from 1789 was that the new federal district courts 'shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.' First Judiciary Act, Act of Sept. 24, 1789, Chapter 20, § 9(b), 1 Stat. 79.
37. Sosa, 28 U.S.C. (2005) note 20, 2755.
38. Sosa, 28 U.S.C. (2005) 2754.
39. It should be noted that none of Alvarez-Machain's tort claims were premised on a provision in a 'treaty of the United States, ' which would lead to a very different analysis of whether the subject provision was considered to be 'self-executing' and creating a private right of action under U.S. law. See 28 U.S.C. (2005) 2763.
40. 'Several times, indeed, the Senate has expressly declined to give the federal courts the task of interpreting and applying international human rights law, as when its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declared that the substantive provisions of the document were not self-executing.'Sosa, 28 U.S.C. (2005) 2767. This question of the interplay between treaty rights and claims under the ATS is quite significant, but is otherwise beyond the scope of this contribution.
41. See Brief of the United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioner, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, U.S. S. Ct. 03-339, 2004 WL [Westlaw] 182581 (filed Jan. 23, 2004) (hereinafter 'U.S. Brief');
42. Brief of Petitioner, Sosa v. Alvarez- Machain, U.S. S. Ct. 03-339, 2004 WL [Westlaw] 162761 (filed Jan. 23, 2004) (hereinafter 'Sosa Brief');
43. Brief for the Respondent, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, U.S. S. Ct. 03-339, 2004 WL [Westlaw] 425376 (filed Feb. 27, 2004) (hereinafter 'Alvarez Brief').
44. The most significant of these were the Brief of Amici Curiae National and Foreign Legal Scholars in Support of Respondents, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (U.S. S. Ct. 03-339), 2004 WL [Westlaw] 419427 (filed Feb. 26, 2004) (hereinafter 'Scholars' Amicus Brief');
45. and Briefs of Professors of Federal Jurisdiction and Legal History as Amicus Curaie in Support of Respondents, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, U.S. S. Ct. 03-339, 2004 WL 419425 (filed Feb. 27, 2004) (hereinafter 'Legal Historians' Amicus Brief').
46. See, e.g., Berman & Reid, Jr., 'The Transformation of English Legal Science: From Hale to Blackstone', 45 Emory Law Journal (1996) 437;
47. Bader, 'Some Thoughts on Blackstone, Precedent, and Originalism', 19 Vermont Law Review (1994) 5.
48. Included on the briefs were Professors Vikram Amar, William R. Casto, Sarah H. Cleveland, Drew S. Days, William S. Dodge, David M. Golove, Robert W. Gordon, Stewart Jay, John V. Orth, Judith Resnik, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. See Legal Historians' Amicus Brief, 'Some Thoughts on Blackstone, Precedent, and Originalism', 19 Vermont Law Review (1994) note 30, at cover.
49. Legal Historians' Amicus Brief, 'Some Thoughts on Blackstone, Precedent, and Originalism', 19 Vermont Law Review (1994) 3-11.
50. Legal Historians' Amicus Brief, 'Some Thoughts on Blackstone, Precedent, and Originalism', 19 Vermont Law Review (1994) 6-8.
51. See also Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) (1784) 111 (the criminal prosecution of the assailant, under the law of nations).
52. See 'Legal Historians' Amicus Brief', 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) (1784) note 30, 11-21.
53. See 'Legal Historians' Amicus Brief', 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) (1784), 11-13, 19-21 (citing Charge to the Grand Jury of Justice James Iredell for the District of South Carolina (May 12, 1794); (1792) 27;
54. Op. Att'y Gen. (1795) 57, 58-59;
55. Bolchos v. Darrel, 3 F. Cas. 810 (D.S.C. 1795) (No. 1, 607)
56. Moxon v. The Fanny, 17 F. Cas. 942 (D. Pa. 1793) (No. 9, 895)).
57. Moxon v. The Fanny, 17 F. Cas. 942 (D. Pa. 1793) 22-25 (relying on English common law decisions regarding transitory torts, and Attorney General Bradford's 1795 opinion regarding a violation of the law of nations that occurred in Sierra Leone (1 Op. Att'y Gen. (1795) 58)).
58. Moxon v. The Fanny, 17 F. Cas. 942 (D. Pa. 1793) 25-27
59. (relying on statements by Blackstone, record of the Continental Congress, correspondence from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and later opinions in such cases as United States v. La Jeune Eugenie, 26 F. Cas. 832, 846 (C.C.D. Mass. 1822) (No. 15, 551) (Story, J.)).
60. See TelOren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 798 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Bork, J., concurring).
61. Sosa, TelOren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, note 20, 2755.
62. Sosa, TelOren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 2756
63. (citing De Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries § 3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883), and 1 James Kent, Commentaries 1)).
64. (quoting W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England vol. 4 (1765-1769) 67 for the proposition that this branch of the law of nations encompassed 'mercantile questions, such as bills of exchange and the like; in all marine causes, relating to freight, average, demurrage, insurances, bot-tomry...; [and] in all disputes relating to prizes, to shipwrecks, to hostages, and ransom bills'.)
65. I have elsewhere observed the strong connection between the early law of nations and admiralty law, see Bederman, 'Uniformity, Delegation and the Dormant Admiralty Clause', 28 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce (1997) 1;
66. Bederman, 'The Feigned Demise of Prize', 9 Emory International Law Review (1995) 31 (book review).
67. W. Blackstone, 'The Feigned Demise of Prize', 9 Emory International Law Review (1995) 68.
68. De Vattel, 'The Feigned Demise of Prize', 9 Emory International Law Review (1995) note 41, 463-464.
69. Sosa, 'The Feigned Demise of Prize', 9 Emory International Law Review (1995) note 40.
70. Sosa, 'The Feigned Demise of Prize', 9 Emory International Law Review (1995) 2756-57 (citing various debates from the Continental and Confederation Congress).
71. Sosa, 'The Feigned Demise of Prize', 9 Emory International Law Review (1995) 2758-59 ('Still, the history does tend to support two propositions. First, there is every reason to suppose that the First Congress did not pass the ATS as a jurisdictional convenience to be placed on the shelf for use by a future Congress or state legislature that might, some day, authorize the creation of causes of action or itself decide to make some element of the law of nations actionable for the benefit of foreigners. The anxieties of the preconstitutional period cannot be ignored easily enough to think that the statute was not meant to have a practical effect.... The second inference to be drawn from the history is that Congress intended the ATS to furnish jurisdiction for a relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the law of nations').
72. Sosa, 'The Feigned Demise of Prize', 9 Emory International Law Review (1995) 2759
73. (discussing the Bolchos v. Darrel and Moxon v. The Fanny cases, as well as the 1795 opinion of Attorney General William Bradford).
74. the Bolchos v. Darrel and Moxon v. The Fanny cases, 2759-61 (addressing, and then rejecting, Sosa's contrary historical arguments concerning the availability of state law causes of action, and an ostensible distinction between 'public wrongs' and 'torts').
75. the Bolchos v. Darrel and Moxon v. The Fanny cases, 2761.
76. See also Stephens, 'Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation', 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2004) 187-88.
77. Sosa, 'Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation', 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2004) note 20, 2761-62.
78. Sosa, 'Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation', 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2004) 2763.
79. Sosa, 'Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation', 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2004) 2773-76 (Scalia, J., concurring and dissenting (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas)).
80. Sosa, 'Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation', 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2004) 2764-65.
81. Sosa, 'Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation', 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2004) 2765-69 (reviewing substantive content of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States).
82. Sosa, 'Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation', 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2004) 2769. This particular aspect of the Court's ruling, as immensely significant as it is for future litigation involving particular torts under the ATS, is otherwise beyond the reach of this essay.
83. For more on this, see Ku & Yoo, 'Beyond Formalism in Foreign Affairs: A Functional Approach to the Alien Tort Statute', Supreme Court Review (2004) 153 (also available at: ).
84. See also Hufbauer, 'The Supreme Court Meets International Law: What's the Sequel to Sosa v. Alvarez Machain?', 12 Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law (2004) 77;
85. Dodge, 'Bridging Erie: Customary International Law in the U.S. Legal System after Sosa v. Alvarez Machain', 12 Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law (2004) 87.
86. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, (Botswana/Namibia), Merits, ICJ Rep 1999, 1045.
87. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, (Botswana/Namibia), Merits, ICJ Rep 1999, 1047-51.
88. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, (Botswana/Namibia), Merits, ICJ Rep 1999, 1108-09.
89. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, (Botswana/Namibia), Merits, ICJ Rep 1999, 1060-61.
90. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, (Botswana/Namibia), Merits, ICJ Rep 1999, 1056 (detail map of region of the dispute).
91. See also S.B. Jones, Boundary Making: A Handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners (2000) 118.
92. The deepest point of the river principle has been applied in U.S. domestic litigation in Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U.S. 158 (1918);
93. New Jersey v. Delaware, 291 U.S. 361 (1934);
94. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 282 U.S. 458 (1940).
95. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 282 U.S. note 12.
96. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Louisiana v. Mississippi, 282 U.S. note 59, 1074.
97. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Louisiana v. Mississippi, 282 U.S. 1075.
98. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. (1993) 519 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (referencing anecdotally a description by Judge Harold Leventhal).
99. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. (1993) note 59, 1075-1076.
100. Vienna Convention, Article.31(3)(a), (b).
101. S.P. Sharma, Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law (1997) 100-110;
102. Rodriguez, 'L'uti possidetis et les effectivités dans les contentieux territoriaux et frontaliers', 263 Recueil des Cours (1997) 149;
103. Lesaffer, 'Argument from Roman Law in current International Law: Occupation and Acquisitive Prescription', 16 European Journal of International Law (2005) 54-55;
104. Donovan, 'Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis', 13 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy (2003) 41.
105. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Donovan, 'Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis', 13 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy (2003) note 59, 1076 (summarizing Botswana's historical arguments), 1092 (doing the same for Namibia's).
106. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Donovan, 'Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis', 13 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy (2003) 1076-78 (regarding the Eason Report of 1910-11), 1078-87 (Ker correspondence of 1947-51) 1087-1092 (regarding correspondence between South Africa and Botswana after a shooting incident in 1984).
107. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Donovan, 'Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis', 13 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy (2003) 1077-78, 1087.
108. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Donovan, 'Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis', 13 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy (2003) 1080-81.
109. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Donovan, 'Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis', 13 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy (2003) 1084-85.
110. Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, Donovan, 'Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis', 13 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy (2003) 1096.
111. Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration (Territorial Sovereignty), 40 International Legal Materials (2001) 938, (PCA 9 October 1998): evidence of effectivités are 'voluminous in quantity but sparse in useful content' in para 239;
112. Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria, (Cameroon v. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea intervening), Merits, ICJ Rep. 2002, 303.
113. Declaration by Judge Higgins in the Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, (Cameroon v. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea intervening), Merits, ICJ Rep. 2002, note 59, 1115.
114. Declaration by Judge Higgins in the Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, (Cameroon v. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea intervening), Merits, ICJ Rep. 2002, 1096-1100.