International Law

Fifth Edition

Valerie EppsProfessor of Law

Suffolk University Law SchoolBoston, MA, U.S.A.

Carolina Academic PressDurham, North Carolina

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page iii

Copyright © 2014Valerie Epps

All Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Epps, Valerie, 1943-International law / Valerie Epps. -- Fifth edition.

pages cmIncludes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-61163-228-6 (alk. paper)1. International law. I. Title.

KZ1242.E67 2013341--dc23

2013027254

Carolina Academic Press700 Kent Street

Durham, North Carolina 27701Telephone (919) 489-7486

Fax (919) 493-5668www.cap-press.com

Printed in the United States of America

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page iv

For all my students, past and future, in the hopeand belief that the development of a just systemof international law can contribute to a better

world for everyone.

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page v

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page vi

Contents

Table of Cases xvAcknowledgments xxvPreface to the Fifth Edition xxviiElectronic Research Resources for International Law xxix

Introduction 3What Is It? 3Traditional Definition 3

Chapter I · Sources of International Law 5Who Makes Up International Law? The Doctrine of Sources 5

Custom 5The Paquete Habana 6Note: The Relationship of International Law to Domestic

(National) Law 11Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc. 12

Regional Custom 21Special or Local Custom 21Jus Cogens 22

Treaties 23North Sea Continental Shelf Cases 24

General Principles of Law 29Judicial Decisions 30Writers and Scholars 31

Concluding Remarks 31Suggested Further Readings 32

Chapter II · Title to Territory 33Terra Nullius 33Discovery 34Occupation 34

Island of Palmas (Miangas) Case 34Note: Critical Date 42Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,

Middle Rocks and South Ledge 43Note: Effectivités 47

Conquest 47Cession 49Prescription 49

vii

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page vii

The Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas Dispute 49Uti Possidetis 53Accretion and Avulsion 54The Arctic 54The Antarctic 55Celestial Bodies and Space 55

Problem 56Suggested Further Readings 57

Chapter III · The Law of Treaties 59What Is a Treaty? Definition 59Capacity to Conclude a Treaty 60Ratification 60

Internal Ratification: U.S. Procedure 60International Ratification 61

Reservations 61Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide 62Problems 68Note: Treaties Creating Jus Cogens Customary Norms and the Right

to Bring a Legal Claim under Such a Treaty 68Entry into Force 69Observance and Application of Treaties 70Interpretation of Treaties 70

Avena and Other Mexican Nationals 71Problem 85

Invalidity 86Error 86Fraud and Corruption 87Coercion 87Conflict with a Peremptory Norm (Jus Cogens) 88

Termination and Suspension 88Material Breach 88

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of SouthAfrica in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding SecurityCouncil Resolution 276 (1970) 89

Supervening Impossibility of Performance 91Fundamental Change of Circumstances 91

Gabcíkovo- Nagymaros Project 92Procedure for Termination 97

State Succession in Respect of Treaties 98Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide 98The Effect of War on Treaties 101

Techt v. Hughes 101The Effect of War on Human Rights Treaties 105

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OccupiedPalestinian Territory 105

Suggested Further Readings 106

viii Contents

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page viii

Chapter IV · Jurisdiction 107The Territorial Principle 107

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America 109The Nationality Principle 111The Passive Personality Principle 112

United States v. Fawaz Yunis, a/k/a Nazeeh 112The Protective Principle 116

United States v. Bin Laden 117The Universality Principle 121

Attorney General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann 122Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 129

Extradition 134United States v. Humberto Alvarez- Machain 135Problem 144

Immunity from Jurisdiction 144Diplomatic Immunity 144

United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran 146Knab v. Republic of Georgia 151Armed Activities on the Territory of The Congo 155

Consular Immunity 157Head of State and Other Ministers’ Immunity 158

Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for theMetropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet 158

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 170Immunity for International Organizations 177Sovereign/State Immunity 177

Absolute Theory 177The Restrictive Theory 178

Letter Addressed to Acting Attorney General Philip B. Perlman fromthe Department of State’s Acting Legal Adviser, Jack B. Tate,May 19, 1952 179

The Act of State Doctrine 182Sovereign Immunity Required in National Courts in Certain Cases 183

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State 184Problem 188

Suggested Further Readings 189

Chapter V · The Law of the Sea 191Introduction 191Internal Waters 192Bays 192

Historic Bays 194The Territorial Sea 194

Measuring the Territorial Sea 196Powers of the Coastal State in the Territorial Sea and Foreign Ships’ Right

of Innocent Passage 196United States v. Conroy, United States v. Walker 199

Archipelagos 203International Straits 204

Contents ix

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page ix

Definition of an International Strait 205Customary Law 205Corfu Channel Case 205

Treaty Law 206The Contiguous Zone 207The Exclusive Economic Zone 209

Rights Exercised in the Exclusive Economic Zone 210Coastal States’ Rights 210Foreign States’ Rights 210

The Continental Shelf 211Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between States with Opposite

or Adjacent Coasts 212The High Seas 213The Deep Sea Bed 214

The Deep Sea Bed Regime under the 1982 Convention 215The Deep Sea Bed Regime under the 1994 Agreement 216

Settlement of Maritime Disputes 216Marine Pollution 216Fishing 218Jurisdiction over Vessels 219

Nationality of Vessels 219The Genuine Link Requirement 219Remedy Where There Is No Genuine Link 220

Prohibited Activities on the High Seas 221United States v. Garcia 223

Jurisdiction over Foreign Vessels 226Internal Waters and Ports 226

Wildenhus’ Case 226The Territorial Sea 228The Right of Hot Pursuit 229

The M/V “Saiga” Case 230Fishing on the High Seas 247

Problem 247Suggested Further Readings 249

Chapter VI · International Environmental Law 251State Responsibility for Environmental Harm 251Establishing the Standard for State Responsibility 252

Customary Law 252The Corfu Channel Case (Merits) 252Trail Smelter Case 255

Declarations and Treaty Law 257Hazardous Waste 258Atmosphere, Ozone and Climate 259Nature, Flora, Fauna and Other Resources 259Nuclear Fallout 260Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 262Other Regimes 265

x Contents

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page x

Environmental Guiding Principles 265The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Principle 265The Precautionary Principle 266The Principle of Intergenerational Equity 267The Principle of Sustainable Development 267The Polluter Pays Principle 268The Principle of Differentiated Responsibilities for Developed

and Developing States 268Conclusion 269Suggested Further Readings 270

Chapter VII · International Legal Personality: States, InternationalOrganizations, Non- State Groups, Individuals, andMulti- National Corporations 271

The Definition of a State 271A Defined Territory 271A Permanent Population 272A Government 272Capacity to Enter into Relations with Other States 273

Secession and Self- Determination 274Reference re Secession of Quebec 274

State Responsibility 285A State’s Capacity to Bring International Claims on Behalf of Individuals 286

Nationality of the Claimant 286Nottebohm Case 287

International Organizations 292 Inter- Governmental Organizations 292

The United Nations 292Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations 293Structure of the United Nations 301

Non- Governmental International Organizations 304 Non- State Groups 305

Protected Groups 305 Non- State Actors 305International Status of Individuals 306 Multi- National Corporations 307Suggested Further Readings 308

Chapter VIII · Human Rights 309Introduction 309Human Rights in the United Nations System 310

The United Nations Charter 310The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 311The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 313

Rights and Freedoms under the Civil and Political Rights Covenant 313States’ Rights to Derogate from Guaranteed Rights and Freedoms 313

Contents xi

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xi

Enforcement of Rights and Freedoms under the Civil and PoliticalRights Covenant 314

Optional Protocols to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 315El Hagog v. Libya 315Llantoy Huamán v. Peru 322

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 327Rights and Freedoms under the Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights Covenant 328Enforcement of Rights and Freedoms under the Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights Covenant 328The United Nations Human Rights Council 330The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 330United Nations Conventions on Specific Topics of Human Rights 331

Regional Human Rights Systems 334The European Human Rights System 334

The European Convention 334Case of Leyla Şahin v. Turkey 335Other European Human Rights Conventions 354

The Inter- American System 354Rights Protected by the American Convention on Human Rights 354Enforcement Mechanisms under the American Convention

on Human Rights 355The Inter-American Commission 355The Inter-American Court of Human Rights 357

Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile 357The African System 370

The African Charter 370The Community Court of Justice for ECOWAS (Economic

Community of West African States) 371League of Arab States 372The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) 372The Association of South- East Asian Nations (ASEAN) 373The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Eurasian

Economic Community 373Enforcement of Human Rights in National (Domestic) Courts 374

Self- Execution of Treaties 374Negusie v. Holder 375

Suggested Further Readings 382

Chapter IX · The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: Arbitrationand International Courts 383

The Obligation to Settle Disputes 383Arbitration 383International Courts 385

The Permanent Court of International Justice 385The International Court of Justice 385

The Composition of the Court 385

xii Contents

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xii

The Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice inContentious Cases 386

Norwegian Loans 390Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua 393Jurisdiction Forum Prorogatum 402The Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in

Advisory Cases 402The Power of the International Court of Justice to Issue Interim

Measures of Protection 402Other Major International Courts 403

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 403The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 405The International Criminal Court 406The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 406

Conclusion 406Suggested Further Readings 407

Chapter X · The Use of Force Including War 409Introduction 409The Modern Era 410

Coercive Measures Not Amounting to Armed Force 410Retorsions 410Reprisals Not Involving the Use of Armed Force 410

Pre- 1945 Law on the Use of Armed Force 411The Customary Law of Self- Defence 412The Caroline Incident 412

Post- 1945 Law 413The United Nations Charter Law 413The Meaning of “Force” 414What Is a Threat of Force? 414Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 415Must Force be Used for a Particular Object to Violate Article 2(4)? 416Exceptions to Article 2(4) 416

Self-Defence 416Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua 417Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 425Oil Platforms 426

Preemption 430Reprisals Using Force 430

The Rule of Non- Intervention 431Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua 433Civil Wars and the Rule of Non-Intervention 439Intervention in Particular Circumstances 440

Intervening to Protect Nationals Abroad 440Humanitarian Intervention 441The Responsibility to Protect 442

The Security Council’s Power to Intervene 443Article 41 Measures 443

Contents xiii

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xiii

Article 42 Measures 444United Nations Peacekeeping Forces 445

Jus In Bello 446Regulation of the Conduct of Hostilities and Humanitarian Law 446

The Geneva Conventions 447The Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovíc 450The Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba 465

Weapons Control 472Nuclear Weapons 474

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 477Suggested Further Readings 499

Treaty Index 501General Assembly Resolutions Index 507Security Council Resolutions Index 509General Index 511

xiv Contents

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xiv

Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2dCir. 2009), 12–20, 31

Accordance with International Law of theUnilateral Declaration of Independencein Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opin-ion, 2010 I.C.J. 403 (July 22), 284–285

Affaire Kervanci v. France, European Courtof Human Rights (2008), 353

Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F.Supp. 516 (D.D.C.1987), 152

Aikins (U.S. v.), 946 F.2d 608 (9th Cir.1990), 225

Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985),137

Air Services Agreement Case, (France v.U.S.), 18 R.I.A.A. 416 (1978), 411

Aluminum Co. of America (U.S. v.), 148F.2d 415 (2d Cir. 1945), 109–110, 120

Alvarez-Machain (U.S. v.), 504 U.S. 655(1992), 116, 135–144, 374

Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (U.K. v.Norway), 1951 I.C.J. 116, 196, 203

Application of the Convention on the Pre-vention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v.Yugoslavia), 1999 I.C.J. 595, 2007 I C.J.43, 45, 98–101, 402

Application of the Convention on the Pre-vention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovinav. Serbia & Montenegro), 2007 I.C.J.43, 44, 101, 387

Armed Activities on the Territory of theCongo (D.R.C. v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J.168, 106, 155–156

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (D. R.C.v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3, 129–134,170–177

Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru) 1950 I.C.J.266, 21

Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Inter-American Court of Human Rights(2012), 357–369

ATSI, Commc’ns, Inc., v. Shaar Fund Ltd.,493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007), 14

Attorney General of the Government ofIsrael v. Eichmann, Judgment ofSupreme Court of Israel, May 29, 1962,116, 122–128, 134, 163, 176

Australia v. France, see Nuclear Tests CasesAvena Case (Mexico v. United States), 2004I.C.J. 12, 71–82, 129, 144, 157, 158,292

Ballinger (U.S. v.) 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir.2005), 224

Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376U.S. 398 (1964), 183

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544(2007), 14

Belgium (Democratic Republic of Congov. ), see Arrest Warrant Case

Benitez (U.S. v.), 741 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir.1984), 115, 119, 120

Bin Laden (U.S. v.), 92 F.Supp.2d (S.D.N.Y.2000), 110–114, 117–121, 131

Birch (U.S. v.), 470 F.2d 808 (4th Cir.), 116Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia, 1996I.C.J. 595, 98–101, 402

Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia andMontenegro, 2007 I.C.J. 43, 44, 101,387

xv

Table of Cases

Bold type indicates that the whole case or a large excerpt of the case appears in the text.

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xv

Botswana v. Namibia, see Kasikili/SeduduIsland

Bowman (U.S. v.), 260 U.S. 94 (1922), 115,118, 119, 120

Boznia & Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia& Montenegro), see Application of theConvention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of Genocide

Brandt (U.S. v.), 2 Trials of War Criminalsbefore the Nuremberg MilitaryTribunal Under Control Council No.10, 181 (1949), 16, 17

Burkina Faso v. Mali, see Frontier DisputeBurkina Faso v. Niger, see Frontier DisputeCadena (U.S. v.), 585 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir.

1978), 201Cameroon v. Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea

intervening, 2002 I.C.J. 303, 12, 213Cambodia v. Thailand, see Temple of Preah

VihearCampa (U.S. v.), 419 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.

2005) rev’d en banc, 529 F.3d 980 (11thCir. 2008), cert. den. 557 U.S. 904(2009), 199

Canada v. U.S., see Gulf of Maine AreaCase

Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S.677 (1979), 141

Caroline Incident, 2 Moore, Dig. of Int’lLaw 412 (1906)(not a case), 412–413

Caro-Quintero (U.S. v.), 745 F. Supp. 599(C.D. Cal. 1990), 135, 140

Carrera v. Carrera, 174 F.2d 496 (D.C.Cir.1949), 152

Casado Coco v. Spain, Judgment of 24 Feb.1994, Series A. No. 285-A, 346

Certain Expenses of the United NationsCase, 1962 I.C.J. 151, 446

Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance inCriminal Matters (Djibouti v. France),2008 I.C.J. 177, 402

Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France, ECHR(2000), 350

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC., 467 U.S.837 (1984), 379

Chindawongse (U.S. v.) 771 F.2d 840 (4thCir. 1985), 158

Chorzów Factory Case, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser.A) No. 9, 30, 78, 79, 175, 245

Church v. Hubbart, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 187(1804), 207, 208

Clipperton Island Case (France v. Mexico)reprinted at 26 Amer. J. Int’l L. 390(1932), 384

Colombia v. Peru, 1950 I.C.J. 266, 384Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in

Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929(D.C. Cir. 1988), 115

Congo v. Belgium, see Arrest Warrant of11 April 2000

Conroy (U.S. v.) & Walker (U.S. v.), 589F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1979), 199–203,230

Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia v. Libya),1982 I.C.J. 18, 194, 212

Continental Shelf Case (Libya v. Malta),1985 I.C.J. 13, 212, 481

Convention on Consular Relations case,see Paraguay v. U.S.

Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Albania), 1949I.C.J. 4, 184, 205–206, 252–254, 400,402, 432, 433, 484

Davis (U.S. v.), 905 F.2d 245 (9th Cir.1990), 225

De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium,Judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A,No. 12, 346

Delimitation of the Maritime Areasbetween Canada and France (St. Pierreand Miquelon), reprinted at 31 I.L.M.1149 (1992), 213

Delimitation of the Maritime Border in theGulf of Maine Area (Canada v. U.S.)1984 I.C.J. 246, 214, 386, 387

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundarybetween Bangladesh and Myanmar inthe Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v.Myanmar), 2012 ITLOS, 212, 213

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundarybetween Guinea and Guinea-Bissau,reprinted at 25 I.L.M. 252 (1986), 213

Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571 (6thCir. 1985), 163

Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium,see Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000

Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda,see Armed Activities on the Territoryof the Congo

xvi Table of Cases

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xvi

Denmark v. Norway, see Legal Status ofEastern Greenland

Denmark v. Norway, see Maritime Delim-itation in the Area Between Greenlandand Jan Mayen

Dogru v. France, European Court ofHuman Rights (2008), 353

Dralle v. Republic of Czechoslovakia,Supreme Court of Austria, (1950) Int’lL. Rep. 155 (H. Lauterpacht ed.), 179

Eastern Greenland Case, see Legal Statusof Eastern Greenland

East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995I.C.J. 90, 284

EEOC v. Arabian Oil Co, 499 U.S. 244(1991), 118

Eichmann Case, see Attorney General ofthe Government of Israel v. Eichmann

Einsatzgruppen Case, Trial of Otto Ohe-lendorf et al., Trials of War Criminalsbefore the Nuremberg Military Tri-bunals Under Control Council LawNo. 11, vol. IV, 463

El Hagog v. Libya, Human Rights Com-mittee (2012), 315–322

El Salvador v. Honduras, see Land, Islandand Maritime Frontier Dispute

ELSI Case (U.S. v. Italy), 1989 I.C.J. 15,386

Erdemovíc, see Prosecutor v. Drazen Erde-movíc

Ex-King Farouk of Egypt v. Christian Dior,24 I.L.R. 288 (1957), 166

Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276(1933), 138

Factory at Chorzow, see Chorzow FactoryCase

Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lessee, 11 U.S.(7 Cranch) 603 (1813), 374

Fawaz Yunis, a/k/a Nazeeh (U.S. v.), 924F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991), 112–116

Federal Trade Commission v. Compagniede Saint-Gabain-Pont-a-Mousson 636F.2d 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1980), 115

Fedorenko v. U.S., 449 U.S. 490 (1981),376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2dCir. 1980), 14

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Jurisdiction)(U.K. v. Iceland), 1973 I.C.J. 63, 97

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Merits) (U.K.v. Iceland), 1974 I.C.J. 3, 209

Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003), 14, 15, 17,18, 20

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470U.S. 729 (1985), 378

Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949),115, 118

Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698 (1893),103

Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253(1828), 374

France v. Norway, see Norwegian LoansFrance v. Turkey, see Lotus CaseFrontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali)

1986 I.C.J. 554, 53, 386Frontier Dispute (Bukina Faso v. Niger),

2013 I.C.J. ___, 53Frontier Dispute (Benin v. Niger), 2005

I.C.J. 90, 386Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952), 136,

137, 140Furundzija, see Prosecutor v. FurundzijaGabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungaryv. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7, 92–97, 98

Garcia (U.S. v.), 182 Fed. Appx. 873 (11thCir. 2006), 223–225

Germany v. Denmark, see North Sea Con-tinental Shelf Cases

Germany v. Netherlands, see North SeaContinental Shelf Cases

Germany v. U.S., see LaGrand CaseGonzales, v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006)

(per curiam), 378Gonzalez (U.S. v.), 776 F.2d 931 (11th Cir.

1985), 225Governo degli Stati Uniti di America c. Soc.

I.R.S.A. [1963] Foro Ital. 1405, 47 Re-vista de Diritto Internazionale 484(May 13, 1963), 182

Gulf of Maine Area Case (Canada v. U.S.)1984 I.C.J. 246, 212, 386, 387

Hatch v. Baez, 7 Hun. 596 (1876), 167Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884),

103

Table of Cases xvii

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xvii

Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Moore, 345 F.2d 978(D.C. Cir. 1965), 153

Herero Peoples’ Reparation Corp. v.Deutsche Bank, A.G., 370 F.3d 1192(D.C. Cir. 2004), 225

Hernandez (U.S. v.), 106 F.Supp. 2d 1317(S.D. Fla. 2000), 199

Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), 9Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan, 12 Int’l

Hum. Rt. Rep. 345 (2005), 353Hungary v. Slovakia, see Gabcíkovo-Nagy-maros Project

Humberto Alvarez-Machain (U.S. v.), seeU.S. v. Alvarez-Machain

INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415(1999), 378, 379

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421(1987), 377, 378, 379

Israeli/Palestinian Wall Case, see LegalConsequences of the Construction ofa Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-ritory

Iran Hostages Case, see U.S. Diplomaticand Consular Staff in Tehran

Iran v. U.S., see Oil PlatformsItaly (Gentini) v. Venezuela, Mixed Claims

Commission, 1903, 30Island of Palmas (Miangas) Case (Nether-lands v. U.S.) 2 U.N. Rep. Int’l ArbitralAwards 829 (1928), 34–42, 45, 52

Jimenez v. Aristeguiete, 311 F.2d 547 (5thCir. 1962), 167

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State(Germany v. Italy, Greece intervening),2012 I.C.J. ___, 22,184–187

Kadic v. Karadzíc, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995), 14

Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v.Namibia), 1999 I.C.J. 1045, 54, 70

Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886), 136,137, 138, 139, 140, 143

Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank, Ltd.,504 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2007) (per cu-riam), 15

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al.,133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013), 21

Knab v. Republic of Georgia, (D.D.C.1998), 151–154

LaGrand Case (Germany v. U.S), 2001I.C.J. 466, 71, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 82,89, 129, 144, 158, 292, 403

Land and Maritime Boundary betweenCameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea intervening)2002 I.C.J. 303, 12, 71, 213

Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute(El Salvador v. Honduras, Nicaraguaintervening) 1990 I.C.J. 92 & 1992I.C.J. 351 & 2003 I.C.J. 392, 53, 212,386

Larsen (U.S. v.), 952 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir.1991), 119

Legal Consequences for States of the Con-tinued Presence of South Africa inNamibia (South West Africa) Notwith-standing Security Council Resolution276, Advisory Opinion, 1971 I.C.J. 16,89–91, 284

Legal Consequences of the Constructionof a Wall in the Occupied PalestinianTerritory, Advisory Opinion, 2004I.C.J. 136, 48, 105–106, 446

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, (Den-mark v. Norway) 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser.A/B) No. 53 at 194 (April 5), 45, 47,59

Legality of the Threat or Use of NuclearWeapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996I.C.J. 226, 31, 105, 130, 257, 262–264,415–416, 425–426, 431, 474, 477–497

Legality of Use of Force, (Yugoslavia v.Spain), 1999 I.C.J. 761; (Yugoslavia v.U.S.), 1999 I.C.J. 916; (Serbia andMontenegro v. Belgium), 2004 I.C.J.279; (Serbia and Montenegro v.Canada), 2004 I.C.J. 429; (Serbia andMontenegro v. France), 2004 I.C.J.575; (Serbia and Montenegro v. Ger-many), 2004 I.C.J. 720; (Serbia andMontenegro v. Italy), 2004 I.C.J. 865;(Serbia and Montenegro v. Nether-lands), 2004 I.C.J. 1011; (Serbia andMontenegro v. Portugal), 2004 I.C.J.1160; (Serbia and Montenegro v.United Kingdom), 2004 I.C.J. 1307,442

xviii Table of Cases

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xviii

Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, European Court ofHuman Rights (2005), 335–353

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad, 1994 I.C.J.6, 70

Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, see NottebohmCase

Llantoy Huamán v. Peru, Human RightsCommittee (2005), 322–327

Logan v. Dupuis, 990 F.Supp. 26 (D.D.C.1997), 153

Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J.(ser. A) No. 10, 123, 226

MacAllister (U.S. v.), 160 F.3d 1304 (11thCir. 1998), 120

Malaysia v. Singapore, 2008 I.C.J. 12, 30,43–46, 49, 52

Mandla v. Dowell, [1983] All E. Rep. 548,343

Marino-Garcia (U.S. v.), 679 F.2d 1373(11th Cir. 1982), 225

Maritime Delimitation and TerritorialQuestions (Qatar v. Bahrain), 1995I.C.J. 6, 71

Maritime Delimitation in the Area betweenGreenland and Jan Mayen (Denmarkv. Norway) 1993 I.C.J. 38, 213

Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea(Romania v. Ukraine), 2009 I.C.J. 61,213

Martinez-Hidalgo (U.S. v.), 993 F.2d 1052(3d Cir. 1993), 225

Masetti Case, decision of 17 Nov. 1947 inMassimario della Seconda della Cas-sazione, 1947 No. 2569, 458

Maul v. U.S., 274 U.S. 501 (1927), 201, 202McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de

Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10(1963), 120

Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), 14,83, 84, 374, 375

Mexico v. United States, see Avena CaseMexico v. U.S., 2009 I.C.J. 3, 83Metropolitan Church of Bessarbia and Oth-

ers v. Moldova, ECHR (2001), 350Military and Paramilitary Activities in andAgainst Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.),1984 I.C.J. 392, and 1986 I.C.J. 14, 44,48, 184, 385, 393–401, 414, 417–424,426, 427, 428, 429, 433–439

Mine Workers (U.S. v.), 330 U.S. 258(1947), 143

Mol Inc. v. People’s Republic ofBangladesh, 736 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir.1984), 182

Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in1943 Case, 1954 I.C.J. 19, 398

Mora v. People of the State of N.Y., 524F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2008), 15

Moreno-Morillo (U.S. v.), 334 F.3d 819(9th Cir. 2003), 225

Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy,6 U.S. 64 (1804), 115

Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. BrandX Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967(2005), 378

Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009),375–381, 464

Netherlands v. U.S., see Island of Palmas(Miangas) Case

New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767(1998), 54

New Zealand v. France, see Nuclear TestsCases

Nicaragua v. U.S., see Military and Para-military Activities In and AgainstNicaragua

Nicaragua v. Colombia, see Territorial andMaritime Dispute

Nicaragua v. Honduras, see Territorial andMaritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (FederalRepublic of Germany v. Denmark)(Federal Republic of Germany v.Netherlands) 1969 I.C.J. 3, 24–29, 30,185, 212, 375, 435

Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S.197 (1904), 143

Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway) 1957I.C.J. 9, 389, 390–392

Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v.Guatemala), 1955 I.C.J. 4, 157, 188,221, 287–291

Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France),1974 I.C.J. 253, 59, 260, 261, 489;(New Zealand v. France), 1974 I.C.J.457, 260, 261, 266, 267

Nuclear Weapons Case, see Legality of theThreat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Table of Cases xix

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xix

Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v.United States) 2003 I.C.J. 161, 220,426–430

Odeh (U.S. v.), 548 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2008),121

Olympic Airways v. Husain 504 U.S. 644(2004), 84

Orozco-Prada (U.S. v.), 732 F.2d 1076 (2dCir. 1984), 119

Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece, ECHR(2005), 350

Pacific & Arctic R. & Navigation Co. (U.S.v.), 228 U.S. 87 (1913), 110

Palestinian /Israeli Wall Case, see LegalConsequences of the Construction ofa Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Ter-ritory

Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), 6–10, 11, 31, 202, 375

Paraguay v. U.S. 1998 I.C.J. 248 (InterimProtection Order of Apr. 9), 82

Phillips v. Eyre [1871] L.R. 6 Q.B. 1, 123Pinochet Case, see Regina v. Bartle and theCommissioner for the Metropolis andothers Ex Parte Pinochet

Pizzarusso (U.S. v.), 388 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.1968), 119, 120

Portugal v. India, see Right of Passage CaseProsecutor v. Dusko Tadic�, Decision on

the Defense Motion for IntercutoryAppeal on Jurisdiction, 1995 I.C.T.Y.No. IT-94-1-AR 72 reprinted at 35I.L.M. 32 (1996), Opinion and Judg-ment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, reprintedat 36 I.L.M. 908 (1997), 404, 405

Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. 17-95-17/1-T (Judgment of the TrialChamber, 10 Dec. 1998), 22, 163

Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovíc, 1997I.C.T.Y. No. IT-96-22, 381, 405, 450–464

Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba, 2005 I.C.T.R.No. 01-76-T, 405, 465–472

Qatar v. Bahrain, 1995 I.C.J. 6, 71Quebec Secession, see Reference reSecession of Quebec

Queen v. Griffiths [1891] 2 Q.B., 145, 123Questions Relating to the Obligation to

Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v.

Senegal), 2012 I.C.J. ___, 22, 68, 69,88, 121

Rauscher (U.S. v.), 119 U.S. 407 (1886),136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143

Reference re Secession of Quebec, 2 S.C.R.217 (1998), 11, 274–284, 305

Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner forthe Metropolis and others Ex PartePinochet, House of Lords, U.K., (1999)2 A11 E. R. 97, 11, 131, 158–169, 176,184

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D.273 (1884), 463

Regina (On the Application of Begum) v.Headteacher and Governors ofDenbigh High School ([2004] EWHC1389 (Admin)), 344

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), 200Rendon (U.S. v.), 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.

2003), 225Reparations for Injuries Suffered in theService of the United Nations,Advisory Opinion, 1949 I.C.J. 174,293–300

Request for Interpretation of Judgment of31 March 2004 (Mexico v. U.S.) 2009I.C.J. 3, 12, 83–84

Reservations to the Convention on the Pre-vention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 1951I.C.J. 15, 61, 62–67, 100

Request for an Examination of the Situationin Accordance with Paragraph 63 ofthe Court’s Judgment of 20 December1974 in the Nuclear Tests (NewZealand v. France), 1995 I.C.J. 288,261, 264, 266

Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Inter-Amer-ican Court of Human Rights (2012),357–369

Right of Passage Case, (Portugal v. India)1960 I.C.J. 6, 22

Rights of Minorities in Polish Upper Silesia(Germany v. Poland), 1928 P.C.I.J.(ser. A) No. 15, 402

Romania v. Ukraine, see Maritime Delim-itation in the Black Sea

Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198 (2d Cir.2008), 14

xx Table of Cases

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xx

Şahin v. Turkey, European Court of HumanRights (2005), 335–353

Saiga Case, see The M/V “Saiga” CaseSale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S.

155 (1993), 118Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S.

(7 Cranch) 116 (1812), 177Secession, Quebec, see Reference re Seces-sion of Quebec

Serif v. Greece, ECHR (1999), 347, 350Simba, see Prosecutor v. Aloys SimbaSisal Sales Corp. (U.S. v.), 274 U.S. 268

(1927), 110Smith v. U.S., 507 U.S. 197 (1993), 118Smith and Grady v. U.K., ECHR (1999),

351Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692

(2004), 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 143, 144Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau BatuPateh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge(Malaysia v. Singapore) 2008 I.C.J. 12,30, 43–46, 49, 52

St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea,see The M/V “Saiga” Case

S.S. I’m Alone Case, III U.N.R.I.A.A. 1609(1935), 244

Stalag Luft III Case, XI Law Reports 33,462

Stanely (U.S. v.), 483 U.S. 669 (1987), 18Tabion v. Mufti, 73 F.3d 535 (4th Cir.

1996), 145Tadic Case, see Prosecutor v. Dusko TadicTaveras v. Taveraz, 477 F.3d 767 (6th Cir.

2007), 14Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222 (1920), 101–

104Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai-

land), 1962 I.C.J. 6, 30, 86, 403Territorial and Maritime Dispute

(Nicaragua v. Colombia), 2012 I.C.J.___, 42, 47, 53

Territorial and maritime Dispute betweenNicaragua and Honduras in theCaribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Hon-duras), 2007 I.C.J. 659, 42, 47

Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriyav. Chad), 1994 I.C.J. 6, 70

The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362(1824), 142

The Land and Maritime Boundary betweenCameroon and Nigeria, EquatorialGuinea intervening), 2002 I.C.J. 303,12, 71, 213

The Caroline Incident, 2 Moore, Dig. ofInt’l Law 412 (1906)(not a case), 412–413

The Lotus Case, (France v. Turkey), 1927P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10, 123, 226

The M/V/ “Saiga” Case (Saint Vincent andthe Grenadines v. Guinea), 1999ITLOS No. 2, 209, 210, 221, 230–246

The Nottebohm Case, see Nottebohm CaseThe Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900),

6–10, 11, 31, 202, 375The Red Crusader, 35 I.L.R. 485 (1917),

244The Richmond, 13 U.S. 102 (1815), 203The Saiga Case, see The M/V “Saiga” CaseThe Schooner Charming Betsy (Murray

v.), 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804), 115The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11

U.S. 116 (1812), 177The Sunday Times v. U.K. (No. 1) Judge-

ment of 26 April 1979, Series A, No.30, 346

Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U.S. 66 (1917),110

Trail Smelter Case (U.S. v. Canada), 3 U.N.Rep. Int’l Arbitral Awards 1938 (1941),255–256, 259

U.K. v. Albania, see Corfu Channel CaseUnited Communist Party of Turkey and

Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 30 Jan.1998, Rep. 1998-I, 347

U.K. v. Iceland, see Fisheries JurisdictionCase

U.S. v. Aikins, 946 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1990),225

U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d416 (2d Cir. 1945), 109–110, 120

U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 665(1992), 116, 135–144, 374

U.S. v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir.2005), 224

U.S. v. Benitez, 741 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir.1984),115, 119, 120

U.S. v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d (S.D.N.Y.2000), 117–121, 131

Table of Cases xxi

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxi

U.S. v. Birch, 470 F.2d 808 (4th Cir. 1972),116

U.S. v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922), 115,118, 119, 120

U.S. v. Brandt, 2 Trials of War CriminalsBefore the Nuremberg MilitaryTribunal Under Control Council No.10 181 (1949), 16, 17

U.S. v. Cadena, 585 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir.1978), 201

U.S. v. Campa, 419 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.2005) rev’d en banc, 529 F.3d 980 (11thCir. 2008), cert. den., 557 U.S. 904(2009), 199

U.S. v. Canada, see Trail Smelter CaseU.S. v. Caro-Quintero, 745 F.Supp. 599

(C.D. Cal. 1990), 135, 140U.S. v. Chindawongse/U.S. v. Siripan, 771

F. 2d 840 (4th Cir. 1985), 158U.S. v. Conroy & U.S. v. Walker, 589 F.2d

1258 (5th Cir. 1979), 199–203, 230U.S. v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1990),

225U.S. v. Fawaz Yunis, a/k/a Nazeeh, 924 F.2d

1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991), 112–116U.S. v. Garcia, 182 Fed. Appx. 873 (11th

Cir. 2006), 223–225U.S. v. Gonzalez, 776 F.2d 931 (11th Cir.

1985), 225U.S. v. Hernandez, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1317

(S.D. Fla. 2000), 199U.S. v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, 504

U.S. 655 (1992), 116, 135–144, 374U.S. v. Larsen, 952 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir.

1991), 119U.S. v. MacAllister, 160 F.3d 1304 (11th

Cir. 1998), 120U.S. v. Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d 1373 (11th

Cir. 1982), 225U.S. v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052

(3d Cir. 1993), 225U.S. v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947),

143U.S. v. Moreno-Morillo, 334 F.3d 819 (9th

Cir. 2003), 225U.S. v. Odeh, 548 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2008),

121U.S. v. Orozo-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076 (2d

Cir. 1984), 119

U.S. v. Pacific & Arctic R. & NavigationCo., 228 U.S. 87 (1913), 110

U.S. v. Pizzarusso, 388 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.1968), 119, 120

U.S. v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (1886), 136,137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143

U.S. v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.2003), 225

U.S. v. Sisal Sales Corp., 274 U.S. 268(1927), 110

U.S. v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987), 18U.S. v. Vasquez-Velasco, 15 F.3d 833 (9th

Cir. 1994), 120U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F.2d 1341

(9th Cir. 1991), 135, 137, 138, 141U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259

(1990), 199U.S. v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.

1978), 200U.S. v. Wright-Barker, 784 F.2d 167 (3d

Cir. 1986), 119U.S. v. Yousef, 317 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2008),

15U.S. v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir.

1991), 112–116, 120U.S. v. Zehe, 601 F. Supp. 196 (D.Mass.

1985), 119U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff inTehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3,146–151, 157, 399, 400

Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S.5 (1936), 137, 138

Vasquez-Velasco (U.S. v.), 15 F.3d 833 (9thCir. 1994), 120

Verdugo-Urquidez (U.S. v.), 939 F.2d 1341(9th Cir. 1991), 135, 137, 138, 141

Verdugo-Urquidez (U.S. v.), 494 U.S. 259(1990), 199

Victory Transport, Inc. v. ComisariaGeneral de Abastecimiento y Trans-portes, 336 F.2d 354 (2d Cir. 1964),181, 182

Vietnam Ass’n for Victims of Agent Orangev. Dow Chemical Co., 517 F.3d 104(2d Cir. 2008), 15

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 198 (1796),374

Warren (U.S. v.), 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.1978), 200

xxii Table of Cases

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxii

Western Sahara Case, 1975 I.C.J. 12 (Ad-visory Opinion), 34

Wildenhus’ Case, 120 U.S. 1 (1887), 226–227, 228

Wright-Barker (U.S. v.), 784 F.2d 167 (3dCir. 1986), 119

Yousef (U.S. v.), 317 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2008),15

Yunis (U.S. v.), 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir.1991), 112–116, 120

Zehe (U.S. v.), 601 F.Supp. 196 (D.Mass.1985), 119

Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516U.S. 217 (1996), 380

Table of Cases xxiii

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxiii

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxiv

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the President and Trustees of Suffolk University who granted mea sabbatical leave, without which this book would never have been completed. The LegalStudies Department at Brandeis University kindly allowed me to test out the text in aninternational law course. My students at Suffolk University Law School have been a sourceof much inspiration and proved a spur to develop better materials for teaching. Myresearch assistants, Tracy Devlin, Kristine Hung, Frank Maniscalco, Halim Moris, andMaureen Pomeroy have all been diligent, prompt, and creatively cheerful. Joan Comertyped, retyped, and then repeated that process many times, always with speed and muchgrace and Patricia McLaughlin provided excellent secretarial assistance throughout theoriginal project. To them all I owe a great debt. The second edition would not have beencompleted without the efficiency, grace and calming influence of Mishell Fortes whocorrected, changed and inserted all the additions to the new edition. In working on thethird edition I was aided by Rita Mercardo, my research assistant, and by the ever patientand tireless Mishell Fortes. The fourth edition, once again, was only possible with thedetailed and meticulous help of Mishell Fortes. For the fifth edition I would like to addmy thanks to my current faculty assistant, Danielle LaVita.

xxv

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxv

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxvi

xxvii

International Law

Fifth Edition

Preface

The purpose of this book is to introduce students, with little legal training, to thestudy of public international law. Within North America law is normally taught at thegraduate level in a professional law school. Yet there is a long and honorable tradition ofteaching international law at the undergraduate or postgraduate level, particularly withinthe larger framework of international relations, generally in departments of governmentor political science. Throughout most of the rest of the world, law, including internationallaw, is taught at the undergraduate level.

The need for a book specifically designed for students with limited legal knowledgebecame apparent to me when I was asked to teach such a course at Brandeis University.I reviewed the available literature and, apart from the standard, narrative form introductionsto international law, there was little available. There are, of course, a number of wellknown case books, widely used in the professional law schools, which I have used formany years teaching in law schools, but all of them were both too detailed for introductorycourses and assumed a fairly large legal background. Almost invariably international lawis taught as an upper level course in law schools and the authors of texts for such coursescan reasonably count on students having a fairly comprehensive grasp of all the coresubjects of law.

I concluded that teaching a course at the undergraduate level or to graduate nonlegalspecialists required a somewhat different approach and somewhat different materials andso I set about to construct my own book. The result appears in the pages that follow. Itshould be added that these materials do not assume that such students are less able thangraduate law students to grasp difficult issues, nor does it assume that they cannot dealwith a variety of complex instruments that bear on a particular problem. Rather the bookfocusses on the central problems of international law, assumes no prior legal knowledgeexcept that gathered by living in a society organized under a legal system, and encouragesstudents to work through a number of problems that present a variety of internationalissues. The overriding aspiration of this book is that students will acquire a general un-derstanding of the mechanisms and concepts of the international legal system and thatthey will find encouragement to pursue further study of the area.

Valerie EppsProfessor of LawSuffolk University Law SchoolBoston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

epps 5e 00 fmt cx3 10/4/13 10:12 AM Page xxvii