Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:39:54.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Applicability of Stare Decisis to International Law en English Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Get access

Extract

The question whether decisions of English courts dealing with points of international law should be regarded as binding precedents has never been authoritatively decided. One view regards a rule of international law, once incorporated by the decision of an English court, as part of municipal law to which the doctrine of stare decisis must apply in the same manner as to a rule of purely domestic origin. Lord Atkin's famous statement in Chung Chi Cheung v. The King is sometimes put forward as necessitating this conclusion:

“It must be always remembered that, so far, at any rate, as the courts of this country are concerned, international law has no validity save in so far as its principles are accepted and adopted by our domestic law. There is no external power that imposes its rules upon our own code of substantive law or procedure. The courts acknowledge the existence of a body of rules which nations accept amongst themselves. On any judicial issue they seek to ascertain what the relevant rule is, and, having found it, they will treat it as incorporated into the domestic law, so far as it is not inconsistent with rules enacted by statutes or finally declared by their tribunals.”

Type
Notes and Shorter Articles
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. [1939] A.C. 160.

2. Ibid. at p. 167.

3. Erades, L., Is stare decisis an impediment to the enforcement of international law by British courts? 4 N.Y.I.L. 105 (1973)Google Scholar; Morgenstern, F., Judicial Practice and the Supremacy of International Law, 27 B.Y.I.L. 42, 80 (1950)Google Scholar; Schxeuer, C., The Authority of International Judicial Practice in Domestic Courts, 23 I.C.L.Q. 681, 705 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Merrills, J.G., The Scope of Sovereign Immunity, 93 L.Q.R. 330, 332 (1977)Google Scholar; cf. also the anonymous note in 16 B.Y.I.L. 199 (1935).

4. Morgenstern, , op.cit. p. 82.Google Scholar

5. The Prospects of International Adjudication, p. 750 (1964).Google Scholar

6. [1920] P. 30.

7. (1880) 5 P.D. 197.

8. [1951]2K.B. 1003.

9. [1894] 1 Q.B. 149.

10. [1924]A.C 797.

11. [1949] 2 All E.R. 274.

12. Ibid. at p. 284.

13. In Re Piracy Jure Gentium [1934] A.C. 586 at p. 592.Google Scholar

14. The Odessa [1915] P.52 at p. 61.Google Scholar

15. [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1485.

16. Ibid. at p. 1493.

17. Ibid. at p. 1495.

18. [1977] 2 W.L.R. 356.

19. Ibid. at p. 381.

20. Ibid. at p. 365.

21. Ibid. at p. 367.

22. Ibid. at p. 388.

23. Ibid. at p. 388.

24. Ibid. at p. 388.