Search results

In this shrinking world, states are increasingly interdependent and interconnected, a development that has affected international law. Early international law dealt with bilateral relations between autonomous states. The principal subjects until well into this century were diplomatic relations, war, treaties and the law of the sea. One of the most significant developments in international law during the twentieth century has been the expanded role played by multilateral treaties addressed to the common concerns of states. Often they clarify and improve rules of international law through the process of rendering them in binding written agreements. These treaties also promote the coordination of uniform state behavior in a variety of areas. International organizations, themselves the creatures of multilateral treaties, have also assumed increasing prominence in the last half of this century. They contribute to the coordination and facilitation of contemporary international relations on the basis of legal principles.

Disputes with foreign policy implications have often been brought to the federal courts. These cases call attention to the tension between the authority of the political branches to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and the authority of the courts to render judgments according to the law. How this tension is resolved, in turn, bears directly on the commitment of the United States to the rule of law.

Many governments are reluctant to submit disputes voluntarily to the International Court of Justice for binding adjudication. Only a few disputes are brought to the Court with the current agreement of all the parties. When that happens, no matter what the technical basis for the Court's jurisdiction may be—acompromis, compulsory jurisdiction, or a compromissory clause in a substantive international agreement or an optional protocol—the Court's jurisdiction is unlikely to be questioned. When the respondent state does not wish the dispute to be submitted to the Court, however, the applicant state must compel adjudication by relying on jurisdiction founded upon the respondent state's consent given in the past. Consent may be found in declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court provided for in Article 36(2) of its Statute. Alternatively, such consent may be found under Articles 36(1) or 37, which permit jurisdiction to be based on compromissory clauses.

In its decision in The Paquete Habana, the United States Supreme Court wrote that customary international law is part of the law of the United States to be administered by the courts, "where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision." The U.S. capture of the foreign fishing vessels in question was determined to have violated customary international law protecting enemy fishing vessels in time of war, and the Supreme Court ordered that compensatory damages were due. The remedy was ordered, notwithstanding the fact that the capture was undertaken to enforce a presidential proclamation establishing a naval blockade of Cuba. The arguments of the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorney General supporting the capture went unheeded.

It has never been clear, however, which circumstances of negotiation and conclusion of international agreements contribute to new rules of customary law. The issues can be appreciated if one goes beyond generalities and explores the relationship of specific agreements to customary law. Such an examination has been facilitated by the American Law Institute's Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised) which contains a contemporary review of a wide range of public and private international law topics. This Restatement represents the views of some of the best international law experts of the United States and abroad. It is also an extremely important contribution to the law in its own right. For these reasons, this article will use the Restatement as a starting point for examination of the function served by international agreements in the development of customary law. This examination shows the difficulties that are presented when international agreements are so used. It may be possible, however, to identify some factors which would help to distinguish those agreements which may appropriately give rise to customary international law and those which may not.