Public Law Studies Quarterly

Customary International Law in the Prictice of English Courts ‎

Document Type : Article

Authors

Hamid Alhoei Nazari 1
Seyedmohsen Hekmatimoghaddam 2

1 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Prof. Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Political Sciences and History, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2022.335491.2966
Abstract
Custom, alongside treaties and general principles of law, is one of the important sources of international law. One of the reasons for the significance of custom is that it is unwritten and always dynamic. This advantage has led to an increase in reliance on custom. International law requires states to recognize and implement the customary international rules within their legal systems. For a national judge to refer to custom, it is necessary to clarify the position of this source within the domestic legal structure. Given that custom cannot be proposed and enacted in legislative bodies, the role of courts becomes even more crucial. In this context, examining the pracrice of countries with a common law legal system will provide useful insights. The main question of this article is what position judges in England assign to international custom and in what contexts do they they utilize it? This research shows that international custom has a significant role in the English judicial system.

Keywords

separation of powers
‎domestic law
judicial ‎precedent
custom
‎immunity.‎
Subjects
  1. انگلیسی
  2. A) Book
  3. Bankas, E. (2005). The State Immunity Controversy in International Law. Heidelberg: Springer.
  4. Crawford, J. (2014). Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law, General Course on Public International Law. Leiden: Brill–Nijhoff.
  5. Fatima, Sh. (2005). Using International Law in Domestic Courts. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  6. Gragl, P. (2018). Legal Monism: Law, Philosophy, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Haljan, D. (2013). Separating Powers: International Law Before National Courts. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
  8. Lepard, B. (2010). Customary International Law: A New Theory with Practical Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Schabas, W. (2021). The Customary International Law of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Shaw, M. (2017). International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Shelton, D. (2011). International Law and Domestic Legal Systems: Incorporation, Transformation, and Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Sloss, D. (2009). The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Weill, Sh. (2014). The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Youngs, R. (2014). English, French and German Comparative Law. London: Routledge.

 

  1. B) Article
  2. Baker, R. (2010). Customary International Law in the 21st Century: Old Challenges and New Debates. The European Journal of International Law. 21(1), 173-204.
  3. Benvenisti, E. (1993). Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law: An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts. European Journal of International Law. 4(2), 159-183.
  4. Brierley, J. (1935). International Law in England. Law Quarterly Journal. 51, 24-35.
  5. Capps, P. (2007). The Court as Gatekeeper: Customary International Law in English Courts. The Modern Law Review. 70(3), 458-483.
  6. Dugard, J. (1982). The Application of Customary International Law Affecting Human Rights by National Tribunals, American Society of International Law. 76, 245-251. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272503700030755)
  7. Fairweather, C. (1998). Obstacles to Enforcing International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts. C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy. 4(2), 119-146.
  8. Francioni, F. (2001). International Law as a Common Language for National Courts. Texas International Law Journal. 36(3), 587-598.
  9. Khalastchi, R. (1999). International Environmental Law in the Courts of the United Kingdom, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law. 8(3), 301-308. (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9388.00214)
  10. Kirby, M. (2010). The Common Law and International Law: A Dynamic Contemporary Dialogue. Legal Studies. 30(1), 30-60. (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2009.00138.x)
  11. Okowa, Ph. (2010). Interpreting Constitutive Instruments of International Criminal Tribunals: Reflections on the Special Court for Sierra Leone. In Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on, Edited by Fitzmaurice M. & Okowa, Ph.. Leiden: Brill–Nijhoff. 333-356.
  12. Roberts, A. (2011). Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 60(1), 57-92. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589310000679)
  13. Ryngaert, C. & Siccama D. (2018). Ascertaining Customary International Law: An Inquiry into the Methods Used by Domestic Courts. Netherland International Law Review. 65(1), 1-25. (DOI:10.1007/s40802-018-0104-y)
  14. Singh, R. (2005). The Use of International Law in The Domestic Courts of The United Kingdom. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. 56(2), 119-134.
  15. Thomas, K. R. (2006). The Changing Status of International Law in English Domestic Law. Netherlands International Law Review. 53(3), 371-398. (DOI:10.1017/S0165070X06003718)
  16. Trapp, K. (2014). The Interaction of the International Terrorism Suppression Regime and IHL in Domestic Criminal Prosecutions: The UK Experience. In Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi- Judicial Bodies International and Domestic Aspects. Edited by Jinks, D., Maogoto, J., & Solomon, S.. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press., 165-181.
  17. Tzanakopoulos, A. (2011). Domestic Courts in International Law: The International Judicial Function of National Courts. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. 34(1), 133-168.
  18. Tzanakopoulos, A. (2016). The Influence of English Courts on the Development of International Law. In British Influences on International Law: 1915-2015. Edited by McCorquodale, R. & Gauci, J.. Leiden: Brill–Nijhoff. 9-27.
  19. Tzanakopoulos, A. & Tams, Ch. (2013). Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of International Law. Leiden Journal of International Law. 26(3), 531-540. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156513000228)
  20. Wuerth, I. (2012). International Law in Domestic Courts and The Jurisdictional Immunities of The State Case. Melbourne Journal of International Law. 13, 819-837.

 

  1. C) Dissertation
  2. Amit, Roni (2004). Judges without Border: International Human Rights in Domestic Courts. Washington: University of Washington.

 

  1. D) Cases
  2. Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 11. (United Kingdom)
  3. Al-Juffali v Estrada [2016] EWCA Civ 176. (United Kingdom)
  4. Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2017] UKSC 62. (United Kingdom)
  5. Jones v Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26. (United Kingdom)
  6. HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz v Harb [2015] EWCA Civ 481. (United Kingdom)
  7. Keyu & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Anor [2015] UKSC 69. (United Kingdom)
  8. KL v R. [2014] EWCA Crim 1729. (United Kingdom)
  9. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012. (International Court of Justice)
  10. R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2003] UKHRR 76. (United Kingdom)
  11. R (Faisal Attiyah Nassar Al-Saadoon, Khalaf Hussain Mufdhi) v The Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 7. (United Kingdom)
  12. R v. Mohammed Gul [2012] EWCA Crim 280. (United Kingdom)
  13. R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport [2004] UKHL 55 [2005] 2 WLR 1. (United Kingdom)
  14. (on the application of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v. Prime Minister and others [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin., [2002] All ER (D) 245. (United Kingdom)
  15. Reyes v Al-Malki & Anor [2017] UKSC 61. (United Kingdom)
  16. Sultan of Pahang, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 616. (United Kingdom)
  17. The Freedom and Justice Party & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Anor [2016] EWHC 2010 (Admin). (United Kingdom)
  18. The Freedom and Justice Party & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Anor (Rev 2) [2018] EWCA Civ 1719. (United Kingdom)
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 4
Winter 2025
Autumn 2024
Pages 2105-2126

  • Receive Date 12 December 2021
  • Revise Date 05 April 2022
  • Accept Date 22 May 2022

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us