<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<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:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear Professor Tesón,<o:p></o:p></span></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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Just so I am not confused, am I right in thinking that you are
not suggesting that ‘substantive arguments’ are grounds for
establishing a rule of customary international law? Rather, substantive
arguments are reasons for a negotiating a treaty.<o:p></o:p></span></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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Ian Henderson<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<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"'>
intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au
[mailto:intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Fernando
Teson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 15, 2010 9:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Koivurova Timo<br>
<b>Cc:</b> intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: Okla state question 755 update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Dear Timo:<br>
<br>
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I simply ask you to consider for one
moment the consequences of this "verbal action" test. The world
consists of five states. States A,B,C, and D covet the resources of state E,
who, because of better economic policies and institutions, has achieved
enviable prosperity, while A-D had engaged in demagogic wasteful policies that
resulted in political and economic degradation. A-D then start a verbal
"practice", promoting a rule that mandates massive transfer of
resources from E to them. No one in his sane mind would say that such
"rule," whose pedigree is nothing more than having been parroted
repeatedly by A-D, is binding on E. In other words: verbal "practice"
can be a ruse to exploit states harmed by the asserted "rule."<br>
<br>
If you don't like fancy examples, here's a real, disquieting one: the
Organization of Islamic Conference, who has almost 60 members, is aggressively
promoting the "rule" that states ought to ban blasphemy (or
"defamation of religions"). Any human rights lawyer worth her salt
must resist this monstrosity, yet these states are engaging in the "verbal
practice" that you support. All they need to succeed is to enlist more
tyrants.<br>
<br>
Rules should be defended with two kinds of arguments: pedigree arguments (the
rule is supported by custom), or substantive arguments (the rule is fair, just,
or efficient, solves a public-goods problem, etc). What activists and norm entrepreneurs
do is to fraudulently use a pedigree argument instead of honestly using a
substantive argument. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
F <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Koivurova Timo <<a
href="mailto:timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi">timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Dear Fernando and Don et al.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Sorry to "wake up" for this interesting discussion at so
late in time (enjoyed a week's vacation:)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>While I read all the comments posted on the list on customary law
this morning, what came to my mind was exactly what Don quoted below, namely
what Jennings said already few years back, that what we call as CIL today
does not even faintly resemble a customary law. I also agree with Don that this
is largely caused by the change in international relations and that now we
are struggling to find a new "rule of recognition" (if we want to
continue with Hartian parlance).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>I would like to take issue with Fernando on the use of CIL in the
field of international environmental law. You recall our earlier discussion
over how the ICJ uses the CIL. Wittness the way the ICJ has not (yet) endorsed
precautionary principle or approach nor common but differentiated
responsibities (or polluter pays, etc.) as lex lata. In the Gabcikovo, the
Court intentionally avoided taking stance on precautionary principle and
affirmed the status of sustainable development as a goal - and at the same time
endorsing the no-harm principle as part of the corpus of international law. One
can hardly speak of the ICJ as an activitist court in the environmental field
(see also the cautions treatment of the EIA as part of general international
law by the ICJ in the Pulp Mills, not in terms of status but what it requires).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>I do recognize that there are problems in the way scholars of
international law use CIL, many times reading their and their sub-discipline's
own values into the law. Yet, I tend to think that we are already wittnessing a
change in the way CIL is been studied, and that is exactly because of the vast
and rapid change in international relations after the end of the Cold War. Yet,
since the doctrine of CIL is so well grounded in international diplomacy and as
part of the "law of the land" of so many countries, my prediction is
that we will have to live with this uneasy co-existence of a) speaking through
words like customary law (practise + opinio juris) b) and basing our
argument on treaties, soft-law instruments etc. (namely, on verbal
commitments). That is why we have started to redefine the "practise"
part of our customary law criteria more as including verbal action. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>It seems increasingly absurd to say that states are not bound by
certain principles of international law, and I think precautionary approach or
principle qualifies to this category, if they become parties to treaties that
include these principles (with the commitment in customary law of treaties that
they also put these principles into real action) as they have on many
occasions. More interesting thus becomes what is the content of e.g. the
precautionary approach or principle. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Very best, Timo</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'> </span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Timo
Koivurova, LL.D.<br>
Research professor, director<br>
Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law<br>
Arctic Centre<br>
University of Lapland</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<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"'> Fernando Teson
[mailto:<a href="mailto:fteson@law.fsu.edu" target="_blank">fteson@law.fsu.edu</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10. marraskuuta 2010 16:10<br>
<b>To:</b> Don Anton<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: Okla state question 755 update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Dear Don and all,<br>
I appreciate the reactions to my comments; they are quite helpful. However, I'm
still skeptical. What does it mean to say that "it is too difficult to
marshall everything required", or that custom's rule of recognition
"no longer works"? It seem to me that this is simply admitting to the
problem: from now on we will try to guess what the best rules are is, imposing
them on everyone (states, corporations, and individuals), simply because it is
too hard to roll up our sleeves and determine as objectively as we can the
existence of the rule --in short, out of laziness. Moreover, I don't believe
finding custom is that hard --witness the masterful work by Henckaerts
and Doswald-Beck on customary humanitarian law. There are additional serious
problems with this guesswork: as John McGinnis recently showed in the Yale Law
Journal, this way of thinking about internaitonal law means that the agency
costs for the dissenting states are huge, not to mention the democratic
deficit. <br>
<br>
Environmental law is an area where this fraud is rampant. Take the
precautionary principle. Perhaps 10 or 15 states have adopted it in their
domestic legislation (I don't know). Does that mean that now this is a rule of
customary law, binding on every state? Think about it: this means that those 10
or 15 states legislate for the rest of the world. Because environmental
activists <i>like</i> the principle, they will try to argue precisely this,
that it is now part and parcel of international law. Yet no political theory
worth its name would accept this as a legitimate law-making. One last
point: I'm not arguing for a positivist rule of recognition; in fact, I'm a
natural-law kind of guy. Rather, I argue for transparency. If someone asserts
the validity of a rule <i>ex aequo et bono</i>, then say so. Don't try to pass
it at custom.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Fernando<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Don Anton <<a
href="mailto:antond@law.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">antond@law.anu.edu.au</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Dear Fernando (if I may),<br>
<br>
I think you may be a little harsh here :) I don't believe anyone is
advocating that anything goes -- I certainly do not, either on the part of
so-call norm entrepreneurs, other international lawyers, courts, or states --
and I seriously doubt that most international lawyers, court and others
analyzing purported customary norms are trying to pull the wool, so to speak.
Dan Bodansky points out that even Robert Jennings, the former ICJ President,
explicitly recognized the problem you highlight: "most of what we
perversely persist in calling customary international law is not only not
customary international law: it does not even faintly resemble a customary
law." See Bodansky in the Art and Craft of International
Environmental Law (2010), at199, updating his earlier article on
"Customary (and Not So Customary) International Law".<br>
<br>
The problem, as I see it though, is that what was once a reliable touchstone
for recognizing custom is no longer functional in a world of 192+ states simply
because it is too difficult to marshal everything required; and if that were
possible, it would be too time consuming. Indeed, to use Bodansky again,
he quotes Zamora rightly pointing out that only an ILC "in permanent
session with armies of researchers could gather and sift through all the
relevant evidence, in a manner acceptable to social scientists, the existence
of a rule of customary international law". 32 Germ. YB. I.L. 9, 38 (1989).<br>
<br>
I do not think fraud is indicated, so much as that we are in a phase of
struggle, trying to find a new "rule of recognition" for custom to
replace one that no longer works. I have seen a number of worthy
proposals, but as yet, none have gained enough traction or acceptance to
replace our 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"
target="_blank">fteson@law.fsu.edu</a>> 11/10/10 3:26 PM >>><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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>
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Don Anton <<a
href="mailto:antond@law.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">antond@law.anu.edu.au</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Greetings colleagues,<br>
><br>
> What a great discussion to wake up to this morning. I look forward
to<br>
> jumping in once I finish end of semester marking (way too much to complete<br>
> in far too little time). My basic position, like many others, is
that it is<br>
> no longer realistic to use the classic positivist approach as a "rule
of<br>
> recognition" for custom. Even the ICJ no longer engages -- if
it ever did<br>
> -- in an in-depth, wide-ranging empirical demonstration of custom (see the<br>
> recent Pulp Mills judgement declaring the customary nature of EIA in a<br>
> transboundary context). Of course, the much more difficult question
to<br>
> answer is what an acceptable substitute to the positivist test of practice<br>
> and opinio ought to comprise.<br>
><br>
> In the meantime, if you have not seen it already, here is a link to the
TRO<br>
> issued by the the U.S. Federal District Court in Oklahoma enjoining the<br>
> entry into force of the of the ballot measure prohibiting the use<br>
> international law and Shariah law in OK courts.<br>
> <a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_101109_shariah_tro.html"
target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_101109_shariah_tro.html</a>
(focuses on<br>
> the religious/discrimination aspect, rather than Supremacy clause).<br>
><br>
> The text of 755, as provided by the Oklahoma Secretary of State, reads:<br>
> <a href="https://www.sos.ok.gov/gov/proposed_questions.aspx"
target="_blank">https://www.sos.ok.gov/gov/proposed_questions.aspx</a><br>
><br>
> State Question No.: 755 Legislative Referendum No. 355<br>
> RESOLUTION OR BILL NUMBER: HJR1056<br>
> CITATION: Amends Const. Article 7, Section 1<br>
> SUBJECT: Courts to rely on federal and state laws when deciding cases<br>
> forbidding courts from looking at international law or Sharia Law.<br>
><br>
> BALLOT TITLE:<br>
> This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that
deals<br>
> with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It
makes<br>
> courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids
courts<br>
> from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from<br>
> considering or using Sharia Law.<br>
><br>
> International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the<br>
> conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as<br>
> countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each<br>
> other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.<br>
><br>
> The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations.<br>
> Sources of international law also include international agreements, as
well<br>
> as treaties.<br>
><br>
> Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran<br>
> and the teaching of Mohammed.<br>
><br>
> SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?<br>
> FOR THE PROPOSAL<br>
> Yes: __________<br>
> AGAINST THE PROPOSAL<br>
> No: __________<br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
> Don<br>
><br>
> >>> Mary Durfee <<a href="mailto:mhdurfee@mtu.edu"
target="_blank">mhdurfee@mtu.edu</a>> 11/10/10 4:05 AM >>><br>
> Agree there is precious little practice in environment. I'm in IR
and not<br>
> competent enough in international law to know enough about custom, regional<br>
> or otherwise.<br>
><br>
> I did have a grad student a while ago (an Israeli lawyer) look at the<br>
> status of the precautionary principle in international law. She
suggested<br>
> that in some regions it was being translated back into domestic law.
On the<br>
> whole, however, it's just an aim. I've been meaning to look at the
actual<br>
> content of the dissents in the Slovakia/Hungary dam case, which I didn't<br>
> have her do.<br>
><br>
> A former undergrad of mine, Matt Hoffmann, now chair of political science<br>
> at U Toronto Scarborough will have a new book out from Oxford next summer.<br>
> He realized that the environmental rules of the 50 US states would
be a<br>
> natural experiment. Some of those actual behaviors by the individual US<br>
> states were driven by international agreements (example: Kyoto protocol) I<br>
> really don't know much more than that about the book,but it may be mighty<br>
> thought-provoking when it comes out.<br>
><br>
> Mary Durfee, Ph.D.<br>
> Associate Professor of Government<br>
> Social Sciences Dept.<br>
> Michigan Technological University<br>
> Houghton, MI 49931<br>
> Work: 906-487-2112<br>
> Cell: 906-369-2112<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: "Ian S WGCMD AUS Henderson" <<a
href="mailto:henderis.aus@centcom.mil" target="_blank">henderis.aus@centcom.mil</a>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au</a><br>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 10:09:02 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>
> Subject: Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: Okla state question 755 update<br>
><br>
><br>
> Not to detract or disagree with the underlying sentiment, but a small<br>
> point: for a practice to be customary international law, there need not be
‘<br>
> universal agreement’.<br>
><br>
> Ian Henderson<br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au"
target="_blank">intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au</a> [mailto:<br>
> <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au"
target="_blank">intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au</a>] On Behalf Of
Fernando Teson<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:05 AM<br>
> To: Carl Bruch<br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: Okla state question 755 update<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Precisely my point.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Carl Bruch < <a
href="mailto:bruch@eli.org" target="_blank">bruch@eli.org</a> > wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Out of curiosity, what examples of customary international environmental<br>
> law would you say are "properly supported by state practice and
universal<br>
> agreement"? This is an issue that I have been following for a while,
and I<br>
> have found very few examples of state-by-state analysis to show state<br>
> practice. It would be great to know where this has been done.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ****************************************<br>
><br>
> Carl Bruch<br>
><br>
> Senior Attorney<br>
><br>
> Co-Director, International Programs<br>
><br>
> Environmental Law Institute<br>
><br>
> 2000 L Street NW, Suite 620<br>
><br>
> Washington, DC 20036<br>
><br>
> Tel: (202) 939-3879<br>
><br>
> Fax: (202) 939-3868<br>
><br>
> ****************************************<br>
><br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au"
target="_blank">intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au</a> [mailto:<br>
> <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au"
target="_blank">intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au</a> ] On Behalf Of
Fernando Teson<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:46 AM<br>
> To: Mary Durfee<br>
><br>
><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> Subject: Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: Okla state question 755 update<br>
><br>
><br>
> Sure, there is a lot of customary law that is legitimate, properly<br>
> supported by state practice and universal agreement. But unfortunately<br>
> there's a lot of "fake custom" generated by academics and norm
entrepreneurs<br>
> who exploit the relative indeterminacy of the concept of custom in order
to<br>
> present their own desiderata as if they were genuine, binding norms.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Mary Durfee < <a
href="mailto:mhdurfee@mtu.edu" target="_blank">mhdurfee@mtu.edu</a> > wrote:<br>
><br>
> Perhaps scholarship and some opinions have gone in that direction, but not<br>
> the actual operations in US State and in other departments. For example,<br>
> there's a new semi-journalistic account, the Least Worst Place on the<br>
> efforts in State and in the US Marine Corps to make Guantanamo legal under<br>
> the Geneva Conventions. There were actively overruled, but there was
little<br>
> doubt in their minds on what the rules were.<br>
><br>
> There is a brand of IR scholarship that I find really interesting, the way<br>
> different courts, municipal and otherwise, use human rights law to give
more<br>
> effect to it. Kathryn Sikkink at Minnesota has done work in this area and<br>
> there seems to be a lot of work going on among Ph.D. students at Virginia.<br>
><br>
> Mary Durfee, Ph.D.<br>
> Associate Professor of Government<br>
> Social Sciences Dept.<br>
> Michigan Technological University<br>
> Houghton, MI 49931<br>
> Work: 906-487-2112<br>
> Cell: 906-369-2112<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: "prabhakarsingh adv" < <a
href="mailto:prabhakarsingh.adv@gmail.com" target="_blank">prabhakarsingh.adv@gmail.com</a>
><br>
> To: "William Slomanson" < <a href="mailto:bills@tjsl.edu"
target="_blank">bills@tjsl.edu</a> >,<br>
> <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au"
target="_blank">intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au</a> ,
"Fernando Teson" <<br>
> <a href="mailto:fteson@law.fsu.edu" target="_blank">fteson@law.fsu.edu</a>
><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 7:35:07 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>
> Subject: Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: Okla state question 755 update<br>
><br>
><br>
> Dear Profs.<br>
> This is very educative for an Indian law teacher. I have been thinking how<br>
> the "third world sees constitutionalism in international law?"
With<br>
> Posnerian view, American scholarship has moved further away to the idea
that<br>
> international relations is the determining factor and int'l is almost<br>
> obsolete.<br>
> Best,<br>
> Prabhakar<br>
> Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: William Slomanson < <a href="mailto:bills@tjsl.edu"
target="_blank">bills@tjsl.edu</a> ><br>
> Sender: <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au"
target="_blank">intlawprofessors-bounces@mailman.anu.edu.au</a><br>
> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:17:54<br>
> To: Fernando Teson< <a href="mailto:fteson@law.fsu.edu" target="_blank">fteson@law.fsu.edu</a>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au</a>
<<br>
> <a href="mailto:intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au" target="_blank">intlawprofessors@mailman.anu.edu.au</a>
><br>
> Subject: Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: Okla state question 755 update<br>
><br>
><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" target="_blank">fteson@law.fsu.edu</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><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" target="_blank">fteson@law.fsu.edu</a><br>
> I<br>
><br>
> Intlawprofessors is moderated by Don Anton and hosted by the Australian<br>
> National University College of Law<br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>