<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi Fernando,<o:p></o:p></span></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>No, but if you have extensive State practice, including domestic embrace, judicial pronouncements, widespread incorporation into treaty, and evidence of opinio, yes, it can become binding on State E if it doesn’t object in a timely manner. That’s an awful mainstream interpretation of CIL; my impression wasn’t that you disagreed with this tenet, but rather that we rely too much on the writings of publicists who seek to establish CIL out of nothing rather than codifying on the basis of state practice. If you’re questioning whether a State that hasn’t expressly engaged in the State practice in question can find themselves bound to such a principle, that’s a different question, but I would say the answer is yes, and that’s consistent with a positivist view of international law since one has the option to object during the crystallization phase and not be bound. wil<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief</span></b><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy</span></i></b><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>2875 Shasta Road<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Berkeley, CA 94708 USA</span></b><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ph: 650.281.9126<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Fax: 510.473.3731<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:jiwlp@internationalwildlifelaw.org"><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>jiwlp@internationalwildlifelaw.org</span></b></a><b><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Journal home page: </span></b><a href="http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13880292.asp"><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13880292.asp</span></b></a><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>SSRN site (selected publications): </span></b><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=240348"><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>http://ssrn.com/author=240348</span></b></a><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Skype ID: Wil.Burns<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Teaching Climate Law & Policy Blog: </span></b><a href="http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org/"><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org</span></b></a><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> fteson@gmail.com [mailto:fteson@gmail.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Fernando Teson<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:25 PM<br><b>To:</b> Wil Burns<br><b>Cc:</b> intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [IntLawProfessors] Intlawprofessors Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>So Wil, let's see if I understand your theory of custom:<br>Thesis #1: if states A,B,C, and D domestically enact norm N, then N is legally binding on country E?, or<br>Thesis #2: If countries A,B,C and D conclude a treaty that includes norm N, then N is legally binding on state E? or<br>Thesis #3: If the courts of countries A,B, C, and D apply the norm N, then N is binding on state E?<br><br> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Wil Burns <<a href="mailto:williamcgburns@comcast.net">williamcgburns@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Fernando et al.,<br><br>I'm wondering if your claim about the precautionary claim isn't a bit of a<br>crabbed interpretation of the sources cited for the proposition that it now<br>constitutes customary international law. Many more countries have adopted<br>the principle in national legislation or regulations, and it's been<br>incorporated into treaties with near universal subscription e.g. the UNFCCC,<br>CBD, CCD; there's also a large number of judicial decisions that can be<br>cited, lots of soft law documents, etc. You can't inveigh against folks for<br>making up customary international law and then not actually try to parse out<br>their rationale for doing so :)<br><br>Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief<br>Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy<br>2875 Shasta Road<br>Berkeley, CA 94708 USA<br>Ph: 650.281.9126<br>Fax: 510.473.3731<br><a href="mailto:jiwlp@internationalwildlifelaw.org">jiwlp@internationalwildlifelaw.org</a><br>Journal home page: <a href="http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13880292.asp" target="_blank">http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13880292.asp</a><br>SSRN site (selected publications): <a href="http://ssrn.com/author=240348" target="_blank">http://ssrn.com/author=240348</a><br>Skype ID: Wil.Burns<br><br>Dear Don and all,<br>I appreciate the reactions to my comments; they are quite helpful. However,<br>I'm still skeptical. What does it mean to say that "it is too difficult to<br>marshall everything required", or that custom's rule of recognition "no<br>longer works"? It seem to me that this is simply admitting to the problem:<br>from now on we will try to guess what the best rules are is, imposing them<br>on everyone (states, corporations, and individuals), simply because it is<br>too hard to roll up our sleeves and determine as objectively as we can the<br>existence of the rule --in short, out of laziness. Moreover, I don't believe<br>finding custom is that hard --witness the masterful work by Henckaerts and<br>Doswald-Beck on customary humanitarian law. There are additional serious<br>problems with this guesswork: as John McGinnis recently showed in the Yale<br>Law Journal, this way of thinking about internaitonal law means that the<br>agency costs for the dissenting states are huge, not to mention the<br>democratic deficit.<br><br>Environmental law is an area where this fraud is rampant. Take the<br>precautionary principle. Perhaps 10 or 15 states have adopted it in their<br>domestic legislation (I don't know). Does that mean that now this is a rule<br>of customary law, binding on every state? Think about it: this means that<br>those 10 or 15 states legislate for the rest of the world. Because<br>environmental activists like the principle, they will try to argue precisely<br>this, that it is now part and parcel of international law. Yet no political<br>theory worth its name would accept this as a legitimate law-making. One<br>last point: I'm not arguing for a positivist rule of recognition; in fact,<br>I'm a natural-law kind of guy. Rather, I argue for transparency. If someone<br>asserts the validity of a rule ex aequo et bono, then say so. Don't try to<br>pass it at custom.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Fernando<br>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Don Anton <<a href="mailto:antond@law.anu.edu.au">antond@law.anu.edu.au</a>> wrote:<br>Dear Fernando (if I may),<br><br>I think you may be a little harsh here :) I don't believe anyone is<br>advocating that anything goes -- I certainly do not, either on the part of<br>so-call norm entrepreneurs, other international lawyers, courts, or states<br>-- and I seriously doubt that most international lawyers, court and others<br>analyzing purported customary norms are trying to pull the wool, so to<br>speak. Dan Bodansky points out that even Robert Jennings, the former ICJ<br>President, explicitly recognized the problem you highlight: "most of what we<br>perversely persist in calling customary international law is not only not<br>customary international law: it does not even faintly resemble a customary<br>law." See Bodansky in the Art and Craft of International Environmental Law<br>(2010), at199, updating his earlier article on "Customary (and Not So<br>Customary) International Law".<br><br>The problem, as I see it though, is that what was once a reliable touchstone<br>for recognizing custom is no longer functional in a world of 192+ states<br>simply because it is too difficult to marshal everything required; and if<br>that were possible, it would be too time consuming. Indeed, to use Bodansky<br>again, he quotes Zamora rightly pointing out that only an ILC "in permanent<br>session with armies of researchers could gather and sift through all the<br>relevant evidence, in a manner acceptable to social scientists, the<br>existence of a rule of customary international law". 32 Germ. YB. I.L. 9, 38<br>(1989).<br><br>I do not think fraud is indicated, so much as that we are in a phase of<br>struggle, trying to find a new "rule of recognition" for custom to replace<br>one that no longer works. I have seen a number of worthy proposals, but as<br>yet, none have gained enough traction or acceptance to replace our<br>traditional practice/opinio test.<br><br>Kind regards,<br>Don -- signing off to cloister myself marking.<br><br><br>>>> Fernando Teson <<a href="mailto:fteson@law.fsu.edu">fteson@law.fsu.edu</a>> 11/10/10 3:26 PM >>><br>So, anything goes then. The ICJ is a major perpetrator of this fraud: saying<br>that a rule is custom with no proof. This is a main reason why we get things<br>like the Oklahoma amendment. Lay people (and other lawyers) don't trust us,<br>international lawyers, and our grandiose claims about what is law and what<br>isn't. It is sad, after all these years, to realize that much of what we do<br>is fraudulent.<br><br><br>Intlawprofessors is moderated by Don Anton and hosted by the Australian National University College of Law<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br clear=all><br>-- <br>Fernando R. Tesón<br>Tobias Simon Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law<br>Florida State University College of Law<br>425 West Jefferson<br>Tallahassee, FL 32306-1601<br>850-644-4287<br><a href="mailto:fteson@law.fsu.edu">fteson@law.fsu.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>