Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T03:54:27.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Harold Hongju Koh

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Harold Hongju Koh
Harold Hongju Koh*
Affiliation:
Orville Schell Center for International Human Rights, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Conceptions of Customary International Law
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 92 , 1998 , pp. 37 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

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 See, e.g., Koh, Harold, Why do Nations Okay International Law?, 106 Yale L. J. 2599 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A more detailed version of the argument can be found in Koh, Harold, Bringing International Law Home, 35 Houston L. Rev. (forthcoming 1998)Google Scholar.

2 See Weisburd, A.M., State Courts, Federal Courts, and International Cases, 20 Yale J. Int’l L. 1 (1995)Google Scholar; Bradley, Curtis & Goldsmith, Jack, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 815 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Koh, Harold, Is International Law Really State Law?, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1824 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 425 (1964).

5 175 U.S. 677, 700(1900).

6 28 USC §1350 (1994).

7 28 USC §1605(a)(3) (1994).

8 Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 818 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

9 Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118 (1804).

10 First National City Bank v. Banco para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba (Bancec), 462 U.S. 611(1983).

11 Compare Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1987) (plurality opinion), with Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).