Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:57:21.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sosa, The Federal Common Law and Customary International Law: Reaffirming the Federal Courts’ Powers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Beth Stephens
Beth Stephens*
Affiliation:
Rutgers-Camden School of Law
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
Customary International Law as Federal Law After Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 101 , 2007 , pp. 269 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

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 Bradley, Curtis A. & Goldsmith, Jack L. Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 815 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Dodge, William S. Customary International Law and the Question of Legitimacy, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 19 (2007)Google Scholar.

3 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

4 Bradley, Curtis A., Goldsmith, Jack L. & Moore, Sosa, David H., Customary International Law, and the Continuing Relevance of Erie, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 869 (2007)Google Scholar.

5 See , e.g., id. at 873 (describing the “modern position” as holding “that CIL is incorporated wholesale into the U.S. legal system as federal common law.”).

6 304 U.S. 64 (1938).

7 See Stephens, Beth, The Law of Our Land: Customary International Law as Federal Law After Erie, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 393 (1997)Google Scholar.

8 28 U.S.C. § 1350.

9 Sosa, 542 U.S. at 730.

10 Id. at 724-25.

11 Id. at 730.

12 See, e.g., Bradley et al., at 873 (“The Court in Sosa held that the Ats authorized federal courts to recognize federal common law causes of action for a narrow class of CIL violations.”).

13 Justice Scalia complains bitterly that the majority permits judges “to create rights where Congress has not authorized them to do so ... .” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 747 (Scalia, J., concurring in part).