Re: Customary International Law - regional rules. Also, hierarchy of international law: treaty vs. custom.

Subject:

Comments:
: Dear Iliana, : International law does recognize what has been called local custom or regional customary law. The Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru, 1950 I.C.J. 266), for example, which was decided by the ICJ in 1950, involved the application of a local standard of custom. In that case, the issue was whether or not Colombia properly invoked a practice of unilaterally characterizing an offense for the purpose of determining eligibility for asylum. In the Asylum case the ICJ recognized local (Latin American) custom where the state invoking it could prove it was binding on the states that were parties to the dispute. This, of course, is necessary with all questions of customary international law. : Your question also seems to hint at a temporal and hierarchical dimension to these matters. With regard to heirarchy of international law, there are very few hard and fast rules that can be applied to questions of treaty vs. custom. Unofficially speaking, I would always prefer to be on the "treaty side" of that argument. In addition, it is a general principle of international law that a later law prevails over an earlier law. Therefore, if the treaty is subsequent to the local/regional custom it should prevail over the custom to the extent there is a direct conflict. : I hope this is useful to you. : Howard S. Schiffman, Esq. : Co-Founder and Administrator : www.InternationalLawHelp.com : : : How does a region claim the development of a regional rule of customary international law in order to displace an established rule of customary international law? For example, the displacement of the rule that states have sovereign rights over their territory and that it is _they_ who determine who is allowed onto their territory and for what purpose and under what conditions. Supposing that a region developed a multilateral treaty allowing police to cross borders in pursuit of persons from another state that had committed a crime in their state. Supposing that not all states in the region were parties to this treaty, but that two of the non-member states had a bi-lateral treaty also allowing the same practice but only between themselves. And then there is one persistent objector. : : Would a regional state, with nothing to do with either treaty be able to claim development of a regional custom in order to avoid any repercussion of allowing their policemen to cross another state's borders in pursuit of those who had committed a crime on their soil? : : Any useful cases to support either side? : : Highly unlikely I guess??

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: