Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T22:58:25.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Different are Treaties and Modern Customary International Law? A Response to Verdier and Voeten

Part of: Pierre-Hugues Verdier and Erik Voeten, “Precedent, Compliance, and Change in Customary International Law: An Explanatory Theory”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy Meyer
Timothy Meyer*
Affiliation:
University of Georgia School of Law
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium: Pierre-Hugues Verdier and Erik Voeten, “Precedent, Compliance, and Change in Customary International Law: An Explanatory Theory”
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 108 , 2014 , pp. 240 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2014

References

1 Anthony A. D’amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law (1971).

2 Verdier, Pierre-Hugues & Voeten, Erik, Precedent, Compliance, and Change in Customary International Law: An Explanatory Theory, 108 AJIL 389, 390 (2014)Google Scholar.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Dunoff, Jeffrey L., Ratner, Steven R., & Wippman, David, International Law: Norms, Actors, Process: A Problemoriented Approach 31 (3d ed. 2010)Google Scholar (discussing the work of Georges Scelle).

6 Joel P. Trachtman, The Obsolescence of Customary International Law (working paper) (Oct. 21, 2014).

7 Meyer, Timothy, Codifying Custom, 160 U. PA. L. Rev. 995 (2012)Google Scholar.

8 Roberts, Anthea, Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation, 95 AJIL 757 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Meyer, supra note 7.

10 Wuerth, Ingrid, Pinochet’s Legacy Reassessed, 106 AJIL 731 (2012)Google Scholar.

11 Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4316 (2001).

12 Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, c.81 (U.K.).

13 Verdier, Pierre-Hugues & Voeten, Erik, How Does Customary International Law Change? The Case of State Immunity, 59 Int’l Studies Q. 209 (2015)Google Scholar.

14 State Immunity Act 1978, c.33 (U.K.).

15 Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth), s.42 (Austl.).

16 State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s.15 (Can.).

17 State Immunity Ordinance, No. 16 of 1981 (Pak.).

18 State Immunity Act 1979, c. 313, s.17 (Sing.).

19 Foreign States Immunities Act 87 of 1981, § 16 (S. Afr.).

20 QI, Dahai, State Immunity, China and Its Shifting Position, 7(2) Chi. J. Int’l L. 307 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Order Restricting Certain Immunity in Relation to the United States, SOR/97-121 (State Immunity Act) (Can.).

22 Verdier and Voeten, supra note 13.

23 International Law Commission, Treaties over Time/Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to Interpretation of Treaties (Analytical Guide) (2012).

24 International Law Commission, Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law/Identification of Customary International Law (Analytical Guide) (2013).

25 Glennon, Michael J., How International Rules Die, 93 GEO. L.J. 939 (2005)Google Scholar.

26 Meyer, Timothy, Power, Exit Costs, and Renegotiation in International Law, 51 Harv. Int’l L.J. 2 (2010)Google Scholar.

27 Hakimi, Monica, Unfriendly Unilateralism, 55 Harv. Int’l L.J. 2 (2014)Google Scholar.

28 Cohen, Harlan G., International Law’s Erie Moment, 34 Mich. J. Int’l L. 249 (2013)Google Scholar.

29 Laurence R. Helfer & Ingrid Wuerth, Custom in the Age of Soft Law (working paper).

30 Meyer, Timothy, From Contract to Legislation: The Logic of Modern International Lawmaking, 14(2) Chi. J. Int’l L. 559 (2014)Google Scholar.