File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1093/ojls/gqac015
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85160934982
- WOS: WOS:000847370700001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Identification as the Process to Determine the Content of Customary International Law
Title | Identification as the Process to Determine the Content of Customary International Law |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | customary international law identification interpretation legitimacy treaties |
Issue Date | 2022 |
Citation | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2022, v. 42, n. 4, p. 1040-1066 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Scholars recently have been arguing that one can interpret rules of customary international law. This article argues that the case for the interpretability of custom is unpersuasive and that the content of customary rules is determined by the process to ascertain the existence of such rules, known as identification. The main thrust of this article is that state practice and opinio juris are central to determining the content of customary international law, but that the case for the interpretability of custom wrongly downplays that centrality. To develop its argument, this article discusses the overlap between content and existence of customary rules, the means to distinguish between putative customary rules (called 'individuation'), the means to interpret customary rules and the possibility for customary rules to move between levels of abstraction without evidence of state practice or opinio juris (called 'plasticity'). This article also criticises the legitimacy of interpreting customary international law. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/335009 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.386 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Lando, Massimo | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-10-20T06:52:26Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-10-20T06:52:26Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2022, v. 42, n. 4, p. 1040-1066 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0143-6503 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/335009 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Scholars recently have been arguing that one can interpret rules of customary international law. This article argues that the case for the interpretability of custom is unpersuasive and that the content of customary rules is determined by the process to ascertain the existence of such rules, known as identification. The main thrust of this article is that state practice and opinio juris are central to determining the content of customary international law, but that the case for the interpretability of custom wrongly downplays that centrality. To develop its argument, this article discusses the overlap between content and existence of customary rules, the means to distinguish between putative customary rules (called 'individuation'), the means to interpret customary rules and the possibility for customary rules to move between levels of abstraction without evidence of state practice or opinio juris (called 'plasticity'). This article also criticises the legitimacy of interpreting customary international law. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies | - |
dc.subject | customary international law | - |
dc.subject | identification | - |
dc.subject | interpretation | - |
dc.subject | legitimacy | - |
dc.subject | treaties | - |
dc.title | Identification as the Process to Determine the Content of Customary International Law | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/ojls/gqac015 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85160934982 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 42 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 1040 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 1066 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1464-3820 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000847370700001 | - |