I’m sure Churchill wouldn’t have waged his defensive war to save his nation without the authority granted by “international law.”

International law is an illusion.

I’m sorry for calling you a dim bulb.

No worries.

Check comment #146. I acknowledge some loose framework for international law and specifically included customary.

I’d say there’s more than a “loose framework” and that international law can grant authority (especially to wage a defensive war), but it looks like we’re just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Not terrorists and no hard feelings.

That’s good. But I guess you’ll have to redo your definition again since GW was a possible last you checked.

why did you state that there is no such thing as international law . . . especially no such thing as customary international law

Check comment #146. I acknowledge some loose framework for international law and specifically included customary.

I guess my bulb isn’t as bright as yours.

I’m sorry for calling you a dim bulb.

Why didn’t you ever answer my question about George Washington and the founding fathers? Do you really harbor ill feelings toward them? I’m not replying to anything else until you answer this question.

Not terrorists and no hard feelings. Now, on to more important things.

I never stated that US courts wouldn’t acknowledge the existence of customary laws. I even raised the issue of the US recognizing the need to transit the Gulf of Sidra with respect to customary law

That’s true. But then why did you state that there is no such thing as international law (and especially no such thing as customary international law). It’s strange that US Federal courts would recognize its existence if, as you’ve stated, it didn’t exist.

I’d really like to know your argument for why it doesn’t exist. I know you said it was in previous comments, but I looked, and am still in the dark. I guess my bulb isn’t as bright as yours.

Here’s a partial list of US federal cases

Puleeeze. You are a dim bulb. I never stated that US courts wouldn’t acknowledge the existence of customary laws. I even raised the issue of the US recognizing the need to transit the Gulf of Sidra with respect to customary law.

I stated that anything considered to be international law (by anyone – include US federal courts) couldn’t be relied upon as an exclusionary authority with respect your now-amended terrorism definition.

Here’s an example of our debate so far.

Me: The red in the color scheme of that car is ugly.
You: That car isn’t ugly.
Me: I didn’t say the car was ugly. I said the red in the color scheme of that car was ugly.
You: That car isn’t only red.
Me: I didn’t say the car was only red. I said the red in the color scheme of that car was ugly.
You: The other color in that color scheme is beautiful.
Me: I didn’t say the other color wasn’t beautiful. I said the red in the color scheme of that car was ugly.
You: Here’s links to articles that state that this car isn’t ugly.
Me: Puleeze. You’re a dim bulb….

Why didn’t you ever answer my question about George Washington and the founding fathers? Do you really harbor ill feelings toward them? I’m not replying to anything else until you answer this question.

Btw, not that it’s germane, but the first three cases you cited are a joke with respect to supporting some strong notion of international law. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld hinged on the UCMJ and Geneva Convention, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain was the SCOTUS granting the United States POWER!!!!! (and I’m sure you remember what I stated about power), and in Hoffmann-La Roche v. Empagran the SCOTUS punted a decision to allow an international action to proceed (in other words – while it may have acknowledged the existence of some sort of international law – the court deliberately avoided taking any action – it AVOIDED the “law”).

I’m not going to look at any others. I’m sure they were just as bad as the first three.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A.,
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California
U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain,
Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876
Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202
U.S. v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56
Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana Airlines, 214 F.3d 301
Galo-Garcia v. I.N.S., 86 F.3d 916
Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233
Aquamar, S.A. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 179 F.3d 1279
Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 33 F.Supp.2d 1244
Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 988 F.2d 1437
Avero Belgium Ins. v. American Airlines, Inc., 423 F.3d 73
Kane v. Winn, 319 F.Supp.2d 162
Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 789
Rodriguez Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 505 F.Supp. 787

The list goes on and on…

You really need to give up this whole international law thing. There is no convention (such as a constitution) which serves as the foundation for anything resembling international law. Therefore, there is no “authority” being granted to those that you would otherwise label a terrorist.

Then what is required for there to be law?

I explained it about 40 comments ago. There will be no review session prior to the exam.

Just FYI, the wikipedia article was meant to respond to your claim that my criteria for customary law were wrong.

Ya. I got that. Thanks for quoting wikipedia which is quoting a single book which happens to be wrong about the Gulf of Sidra which proves that it’s not an absolute statement.

Why would there be “many differing opinions as to what rules are contained in it” if the criteria are so absolute?

Customary international law “… consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way.”[1] It follows that customary international law can be discerned by a “widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time (State practice); Acts must occur out of sense of obligation (opinio juris);

eriously? How many more times do I need to tell you that a constitution isn’t a requirement for law/authority?
England doesn’t declare law via custom.

Then what is required for there to be law?

Please read

There was nothing impressive on your weak wikipedia page.

In fact it stated, “there are many differing opinions as to what rules are contained in it.” For the sixth time (at least) – that’s not authoritative.

International law derives its authority from the voluntary relinquishment of state sovereignty/authority. In modern democracies, that state sovereignty comes from the people. In such cases, it really does not look that different from the authority afforded to the Constitution…

Of course it looks different. There is no consistent voluntary relinquishment internationally.

If it has no constitution or other similar source of authority, how can it be law?

Seriously? How many more times do I need to tell you that a constitution isn’t a requirement for law/authority?

England doesn’t declare law via custom.

Your criteria is wrong and further demonstrates the weakness of what you consider international law.

Please read

So, you are now only left with claiming that the UN is your source of international law. Right?

So, I believe the thrust of your argument is as follows (and please correct me if I’m wrong). For law to exist, there must be a higher authority from which it is derived. There is no higher authority on which “international law” is based, and therefore there is no international law. Is that accurate?

US domestic law, on the other hand, is based on the authority of the constitution (is that right?) Therefore, it is law.

I see a few problems with this argument , which I don’t think you have adequately discussed (or perhaps I have not articulated them).

The Constitution is not an intrinsic source of authority. It derives its authority from “we the people.” If “we the people” abandon the Constitution, it no longer has authority (it’s just a piece of paper after all).

International law derives its authority from the voluntary relinquishment of state sovereignty/authority. In modern democracies, that state sovereignty comes from the people. In such cases, it really does not look that different from the authority afforded to the Constitution (just with one intermediary step). Obviously, not all modern states are democracies. These states may view sovereignty as deriving from elsewhere.

All this authority talk also does little to explain British Common Law. If it has no constitution or other similar source of authority, how can it be law? I’m really interested to hear your take on this in particular.