Dualistic and Monistic Approach in the International Law: A Caselaw

Analysis

I. Introduction
 As the international community has become more globalized in the last few centuries, it
has become much harder for national courts to avoid issues of international law. It has been
estimated that in the past twenty years, over fifty international judicial bodies have sprung up
worldwide, ensuring that municipal judicial systems increasingly interact with the
international bodies.1 Municipal courts have developed over centuries to have a strict
hierarchical system, with procedural rules and doctrines that are utilized by litigants to
provide for a proper procedure for litigants to bring their issues to courts and remedy the
wrongs committed against them. With more transnational issues being litigated in courts
worldwide, judges have been tasked with interpreting not only domestic laws, but also laws
and treaties in the international sphere, with the traditional dualistic approach being
challenged more often.
According to Malcolm Shaw, a renown barrister and an international law scholar, the end
of nineteenth and beginning of twentieth centuries saw the rise of two schools of thought:
monism and dualism as a result of the growing importance of international treaties and
customs.2 Sir Hersch Lauterpacht , the late Judge at the International Court of Justice, tackled
the dichotomy between monism and dualism in International Law: A Treatise by providing a
detailed analysis between the importance of the Law of Nations and Domestic Law.3
According to the scholar, dualists agree that municipal law lacks the authority to alter
international law and vice versa.4 Monists, on the other hand focus on individual actions,
with individuals being states in the international sphere and citizens in the municipal sphere.5
Most of the states that follow the common law tradition have adopted the dualist approach –
that is municipal law and international law act separately, with international law serving of no
importance in domestic courts unless it was incorporated into domestic law.6 Monist states,
such as the Netherlands and France, on the other hand believe that both international law as
well as domestic law are an exhibition of a single legal formation, with international law
taking precedence over domestic law where applicable.7

1
Jenny S Martinez Towards an International Judicial System, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 429, 430
2
Malcolm N. Shaw International Law (8th Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017) 21.
3
Lassa Oppenheim and Hersch Lauterpacht International Law Vol 1: Peace (8th D. McKay 1995)
4
International Law Vol 1: Peace
5
International Law Vol 1: Peace
6
Melissa A. ‘Waters Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend Toward Interpretive Incorporation Of
Human Rights Treaties’ (2007) 107 Colum. L. Rev. 628
7
Israel De Jesus Butler ‘Securing Human Rights in The Face of International Integration’ International
& Comparative Law Quarterly 2011
 The present paper discusses the importance of international law in modern domestic
courts by comparing judicial decisions in the United States, a state that follows a hybrid
monistic/dualistic approach to the legal system, and the United Kingdom, a state with a well-
established dualistic approach to international law in its domestic courts. The paper will
examine cases from both jurisdictions, and attempt to demonstrate that despite the two
different schools of thought, international law has become increasingly important in
establishing precedents in municipal courts.
II. The Rise of International Law in United States Domestic Courts via
Incorporation of Alien Tort Statute
One of the biggest debates among international law scholars in the United States has been
regarding the importance of foreign case decisions in regards to domestic law.8 United States
is considered to be one of the nations that declares that international law is part of its
domestic law.9 While neither the U.S. Constitution nor state constitutions expressly provide
that international law is incorporated into municipal, courts have applied what they called law
of the nations since the establishment of the republic.10 United Sates has publically hailed
itself as the police power of the world, yet it has been notoriously adamant about following
international human rights law norms, as demonstrated by its refusal to become a party to the
Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court as it feared prosecution of its own
officials.11 In addition, the re-emergence of ATS in U.S. Judicial decisions demonstrates the
struggle that he United States has had with the notion of dualism versus monism, as Supreme
Court Justices and district court judges have gone back and forth between utilizing
international law to interpret American policy and protecting American individualism and
constitutionalism.
A. Revival and Decline of International Human Rights as Customary Law
The Alien Tort Statute, also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act was first enacted in the
Judiciary Act of 178912. On June 25, 1948 the Alien Tot Act was codified in the United States
Court stating that ‘The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an

8
Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer ‘A Conversation Between U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ (2005)
3(4) IJCL 519
9
The Paquete Habana  175 U.S. 677, 20 S. Ct. 290, (1900), 700
10
Louis Henkin ‘International Law as Law in the United States’ (1984) 82 Mich. L. Rev 1555, 1556
11
John R. Bolton ‘Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Washington,
Letter to Kofi Annan, Secretary General, United Nations’ (May 6, 2002)
12
Judiciary Act of 1789 § 9, 1 Stat 76 - 77
alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United
States.’13 The Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) has been largely interpreted to provide redress to
aliens requiring a federal forum for injuries caused to them by United States citizens.14 The
Alien Tort Statute was left in obscurity for nearly two centuries until 1980, when the Second
Circuit court in Filartiga v Pena-Irala allowed a citizen of Paraguay to sue another citizen of
Paraguay for the torture as well as the wrongful death of her son.15 The court essentially
utilized the ATS to demonstrate federal jurisdiction, as an alien can sue for any violation of
the law of nations, which according to the judges is a large part of federal common law.16
The Second District court in Filartiga had to decide whether it had proper jurisdiction via
the ATS to even hear the case and if it did, whether the 1975 United Nations Declaration on
the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture (“UN Declaration Against
Torture”) constituted a customary source of international law.17 The Filartigas, the father and
sister of the seventeen year old victim, brought a wrongful death suit against Pena-Irala, then
Inspector General of Police, for kidnapping, torture, and subsequent death of the young
man.18 Both the Defendant and one of the Plaintiffs, the sister, were residents of the United
Sates at the time of the suit but remained citizens of Paraguay.19 As to the first issue of United
States having jurisdiction over the parties, the court held that the First Congress gave original
jurisdiction to district courts if there has been a violation of the law of nations.20 In an opinion
by Judge Kaufman, the court found that any torture committed by an alien under the guise of
the law, who is then subsequently found and served within the nation’s borders, is considered
to be a violation of the law of the nations as well as the intentional violation of commonly
accepted customary norms of international human rights law.21 As to the second issue, the
court noted the importance of the various United Nations declarations, specifically the
Declaration Against Torture22, as it creates an express prohibition against the use of torture.23
13
28 U.S.C. § 1350
14
Anthony J. Bellia Jr and Bradford R. Clark ‘The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations’ ( 78 U.
Chi. L. Rev. 445, 450-451
15
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980), 885
16
Filartiga, 886
17
Filartiga, 883
18
Filartiga, 879
19
Filartiga, 879
20
Filartiga, 878
21
Filartiga, 878
22
Filartiga, 883
23
UNGA Res 3452, 30 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 34) 91, U.N.Doc. A/1034 (1975)
The court especially noted the importance of the fact that the Declaration Against Torture
was passed without a single dissenting opinion, drawing comparison to the Declaration of
Human Rights.24
This case is of grave importance as it was the first case that utilized the ATS in order to
give American courts original jurisdiction over aliens. The court used a very broad
interpretation of the ATS, which can be argued opened the floodgates to a myriad of cases
dealing with aliens being brought before American district courts. It seems that Chief Judge
Kaufman and his panel of colleagues believed that the constitutionality of the issues arose
under federal law. The judges in Filartiga fully embraced the monist approach by viewing
municipal law and international law as a single concept. They viewed international law as
part of the American constitutional law, allowing them as well as other judges in the future to
interpret international laws and customs as they were authorized to do so via the ATS. The
decision in Filartiga signaled an era of acknowledgment by the American courts of the fact
that American law and international law have been intertwined to a larger degree than
previously thought. As a monist state, international law has always been working in
conjunction with domestic law and the court in its landmark decision broadened the scope of
laws that saw the U.S. as part of a larger global system. However, that openness and global
approach to appreciating international law and human rights was short lived, as with the Iraq
War in full swing and the Bush administration facing countless human rights violations for
the treatment of Iraqi civilians by the troops and the scrutiny the presidency faced in regards
to the legality of the war itself. The United States sought to close the door – or at least
narrow the scope of – litigation brought by aliens using ATS as a way to ensure the
government officials and members of armed services do not face prosecution for their
actions.
It was not until the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the confusion in Sosa v Alvarez-
Machain25 and the subsequent passage of the Reform of 2005 that the level of confusion in
regards to the ATS has eased. In Sosa, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) agent was
captured and tortured by a drug cartel. Alvarez - Machain, a Mexican doctor, was charged by
the U.S. government with treating the agent so that his captors can continue with the torture.26
The Mexican government refused to extradite Alvarez, which prompted the DEA to hire Sosa
and his acquaintances to kidnap Alvarez and transport him to Texas where he could be taken

24
Filartiga, 884
25
Sosa v. Alvarez - Machain 542 U.S. 692, 124 S. Ct. 2739  (2004)
26
Sosa, 697
into custody.27 The Court interpreted the ATS rather narrowly, stating that only a small
number of torts was permitted to be litigated in the U.S. by the Statute28, but rejecting Scalia’s
view that the Court has no authority to analyze international norms unless it specifically
arises out of federal law, but rather that ‘judicial power should be exercised on the
understanding that the door is still ajar subject to vigilant door keeping, and thus open to a
narrow class of international norms today.’29
In Sosa, the U.S. Supreme Court was presented with two issues. The Court was asked to
decide whether Alvarez – Machain’s abduction by the DEA agents warranted a claim by the
Mexican national against the American Government under either the Federal Tort Claim Act
(“FTCA”) or whether there was a claim under the ATS.30 In an effort to curb further
unnecessary litigation, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Souter, decided
that Alvarez – Machain was not entitled to any remedy as the Court has no jurisdiction. 31 As
to the FTCA, the Court noted the importance of the fact that Congress had specifically
ensured that the Act contained what is known as a foreign country exception, which
according to the Court ‘bars all claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country,
regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred’.32 As to the ATS, the Court decided
to take a narrow approach to its analysis, by holding that while ATS is a statute that seeks to
take practical measures against tortfeasors, it is only applicable to a very small number of
torts.33 The Court held that Congress, when enacting ATS had absolutely no intention to grant
jurisdiction to US courts for torts other than piracy and the violations of the rights of
ambassadors or safe conducts. 34 In his opinion, Justice Souter warned federal courts that
they should be precluded from interpreting international human rights law without any further
action taken by the U.S. Congress to allow suits like the one brought by Alvarez – Machain.35
In a notoriously concurring opinion, late Justice Scalia takes an even more stern approach to
ATS, stating that matters such granting jurisdiction based on ATS to private causes of action
should not be the Court’s job, but rather a matter for Congress to decide.36

27
Sosa, 698
28
Sosa, 724
29
Sosa, 729
30
Sosa, 697
31
Sosa, 697
32
Sosa, 712
33
Sosa, 724
34
Sosa, 724
35
Sosa, 728
36
Sosa, 749 - 750
 The more politically conservative leaning Court in its 2005 decision nearly closed the
door on ATS based litigation, as it did not see fit for the Act to provide redress to private
causes of action. The Court nearly went as far as calling the ATS as outdated and
unnecessary, as it only should cover specific causes of action under the law of the nations. It
seems as if in the wake of alleged human rights law violations by the United States
government, the Court wanted to shut the door on any future litigation via ATS. With its
landmark decision, the Court seemed to have delegated the power of decisions over aliens
seeking jurisdiction to Congress. In 2005, just a year after the Court rendered the Sosa
decisions, the 109th Congress of the U.S. passed the Alien Tort Statute Reform Act in an
attempt to clarify the causes of action that the Act could encompass.37 In addition to
specifying the types of torts that an alien can bring against a U.S. citizen (mainly torture,
genocide, piracy, or slave trade), the Reform Act provided that a U.S. court may not have
jurisdiction over the claim unless the claimant has exhausted all available remedies in the
pace where the tort itself occurred.38 While it may have appeared that the court in Filartga
broadened the scope of the ATS, lower courts seemed to have struggled to properly interpret
statute and its jurisdictional limitations.39
In a 2005 case, the Supreme Court surprisingly swayed from its traditional
constitutionalist approach and utilized international customary law norms when it set aside
the death sentence of the seventeen-year-old respondent in Roper v Simmons.40 This non
ATS case is a clear example of the struggle American jurisprudence faces when attempting to
incorporate international law norms into its own law. In Roper, the Respondent committed a
murder at the age of 17 and was sentenced to death as soon as he turned eighteen.41 The Court
was asked to decide whether being sentenced to death for committing a crime as a minor
constituted a violation of Simmons’ Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual
punishment.42 In its decision, the court struck down Simmons’ death penalty by surprisingly
citing numerous international statutes and treaties, some of which United States was not a
signatory to.43 In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court lamented that the U.S. is
the only country in the world that until this day continues to use juvenile death penalty and

37
Alien Tort Statute Reform Act, 109 Bill Tracking S. 1874 (October 17, 2005)
38
Alien Tort Statute Reform Act
39
The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations, 462
40
Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005)
41
Roper, 556
42
Roper, 560
43
Roper, 576.
that other than Somalia, it is the only country that has not ratified the U.N. Convention on the
Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”).44 Justice Kennedy’s opinion places significant weight –
albeit the Court does acknowledge that international law is not a deciding factor in its
decision - on the importance of international consensus that young offenders are immature
and lack proper balance.45 Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Thomas, as usual, in their
dissenting opinion stated that there is no room for international law when interpreting
American law, taking the very traditional and pro-Constitution approach.
The Roper decision was a stark departure from the tone the Court took in Sosa as it
placed great consideration on international laws, especially the Convention on the Rights of
Child. Justice Kennedy’s more moralistic and less stringent approach to international
customary law norms in interpreting American laws is a welcomed trend for those who wish
to see United States fully accept the monist school of thought. Contrasted with the fear of the
international system that the Court demonstrated in its previous decision, the decisions in
Roper is an acceptance of the US as part of the international community. Even in her dissent,
Justice O’Connor noted the importance of having an international consensus on juvenile
death sentences which could lead towards a national consensus in the US.46 The opinion in
the case signals a very important change in the U.S. legal system as that of not only
acknowledging the importance of international norms, but also the change of attitude in the
American legal community to be more accepting of foreign authority and push the U.S.
towards progress on the international plane.
Although it may seem that with the Filartiga decision the American judicial system
seemed to have opened the door to human rights law litigation in the U.S., the Supreme Court
as well as well as the legislature nearly closed the door on the evolvement of American
accountability for atrocities committed worldwide. With the narrowing understanding of
ATS, it seems that the U.S. government sought to limit its commitment to international law
and international bodies, leaving it to individual nations to hold accountable violators of
international customary law. The decision in Sosa stemmed away from the more traditional
monist idea that international law is part of American law and placed the U.S. on an
individualist and more dualist path, away from obligations to follow customary international
law. The Court went back on its constitutional approach to analysis in Roper, when it took an
extensive look at international law norms in regards to children’s rights and took into

44
Roper, 576 – 577
45
Roper, 578
46
Roper 578
consideration treaties and conventions that the U.S. has refused to even sign. The trend that
began in 1980 to utilize unincorporated international treaties and statutes into municipal court
decisions has been identified as ‘creeping monism’ by some scholars, which allowed judges
to modify the discourse in relation to human rights law.47 While there is a struggle in the U.S.
to properly interpret international laws and use them as a basis for its decisions, it seems that
the trend towards a more traditional monist approach has been set, with courts being more
open to the notion of governing international law.
III. The Importance of International Law in United Kingdom Courts
The traditional approach to international law in the United Kingdom has been that of
dualism – that is international treaties are not enforceable in municipal courts unless they
have been ratified and implemented and incorporated into domestic law.48 In 2010, UK
adopted the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, further solidifying its dualist
approach as the Act ensured that no treaty could be ratified without the express consent of the
House of Commons.49 Therefore, the UK has continuously reaffirmed its position of dualism,
as English law reign supreme to international law.
In the 1991 R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p. Brind  a prime
example of the dualistic approach, the Court was asked whether Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) should govern as it allowed broadcasting companies
BBC and IBA to publish statements by persons associated with terrorist organizations, an
action that the Secretary of State had specifically asked broadcasting organizations to refrain
from publishing.50 Thus, the Court was asked to determine whether Article 10 which
provides the right to freedom of expression should be supreme law. Lord Bridge of Harwich,
in his decision, stated that since the ECHR is not part of UK municipal law, it is not
governing authority, and therefore, even if there is conflict between domestic and
international law, domestic law will always be the one that governs.51 The Court determined
that since European law could not govern, they had to use what is known the Wednesbury
reasonableness test, as it was not up to the justices to determine what was proportionate under
European Union law.52 In the more recent 2000 decision in R. v Bow St Metropolitan

47
Melissa A. Waters ‘Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend Toward Interpretive Incorporation Of
Human Rights Treaties’ (2007) 107 Colum. L. Rev. 628
48
Melissa A. Waters ‘’Creeping Monism’ 637
49
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
50
R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p. Brind  [1991] 1 A.C. 696 (HL) (Lord Bridge)
51
Ex p. Brind  (Lord Bridge)
52
Ex p. Brind  (Lord Bridge)
Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p. Pinochet Ugarte 53 the Court was tasked with determining
whether Pinochet could be extradited to Spain for crimes of torture and whether he was
entitled to state immunity. Pinochet entered the UK in 1998 for medical treatment an in
October of the same year, Spain issued an arrest warrant under the authority of universal
jurisdiction to be tried for torture occurring between 1988 and 1992 and conspiracy to
commit murder between 1976 and 1992.54 In an outline of the law, Lord Browne - Wilkinson
explained that Pinochet could not be extradited for any crimes that have occurred before 1988
as it was only that year that the state enacted section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act, thus
acts committed by Pinochet prior to 1988 could not be considered acts that would allow
extradition to Spain.55 The Criminal Justice Act sets a condition that a crime will be
considered extraditable if the crime could be punishable by 12 months or more if committed
in the UK.56Therefore, Lord Bowne–Wilkinson concludes that only two extradition charges
remain as they relate to a period of time after the UK passed the act.57
The two municipal cases demonstrate UK’s determination to remain tied to its dualist
roots and unwillingness to accept that international law should be supreme to domestic law.
Even in the case of such heinous crimes as torture, the Justices do accept the severity of the
crime, yet they act as if their hands are tied since English domestic law prevents them from
acting upon European law or European precedent. This is an indication that courts in the UK
would not take any shortcuts in implementing European laws and would leave ratification
and implementation of legislative acts to the proper authorities, such as the House of
Commons. While the Court in Ex p. Pinochet Ugarte acknowledged the importance of
international human rights law and conventions against torture, it ruled that because the
corresponding English law was not established until 1988, it simply could not consider any
such violations of law prior to its establishment – that is it refused to consider any aspect of
applying eh law retroactively. This was a signal that common law courts are not there to
bypass rules and procedures set up in state constitutions and that the rule of law was to be
followed properly. This mean that it was not up to the court to make new laws or adopt laws
that were created by international authorities, but rather to interpret national laws.

53
R. v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex p.  Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [2000] 1 A.C. 147
(HL) (Lord Browne-Wilkinson)
54
Ex p.  Pinochet Ugarte (Lord Browne-Wilkinson)
55
Ex p.  Pinochet Ugarte (Lord Browne-Wilkinson)
56
Criminal Justice Act of 1988 c 133
57
Ex p.  Pinochet Ugarte (Lord Browne-Wilkinson)
 However, even in such a stringent dualist state, there has been a slow trend at accepting
international law on the same level as domestic law. In R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions the Court was asked to decide whether a cap on benefits received by
jobless households was lawful, as it was challenged under Article 14 of ECHR.58 While the
Court found that the cap imposed by authorities was constitutional and it did not
disproportionally discriminate between non-working men and women, the Court did seem to
consider unincorporated treaties.59 Lord Reed, in his opinion, acknowledged that while
UNCRC is unincorporated in English law, it would have been quite relevant when discussing
the issues present under ECHR.60 However, Lord Reed acknowledges that since the issue
presented in front of the Court is that of gender discrimination and not children’s rights, the
Court will not address the issue.61 Furthermore, Lord Reed notes that even if UNCRC was
presented as an argument, once again English courts have no jurisdictional right to even
discuss it as courts are there to merely interpret laws and UNCRC is unincorporated in UK
law. 62 What is rather interesting, however, was the dissenting opinion of Lord Kerr, who
joined Lady Hale as the second voice of dissent in this decision. 63 Lord Kerr acknowledged
the importance of the dualist approach and the fact that in the UK, the constitutional
orthodoxy has been the importance of municipal law. However, Lord Kerr interestingly
suggested that there is a reason for there to be an exception for unincorporated treaties if
treaties concern human rights.64 While citing numerous authorities on the matter, Lord Kerr
laments that there will be considerate backlash in the courts if the traditional dualist approach
is abandoned towards a more monist point of view.65 Lord Kerr views that while the dualist
theory attempts to protect citizens from abuse of power by the executive, human rights issues
are issues of citizens and that the UK should indeed follow and accept conventions enforced
by international treaties in regards to human rights as they are there to protect the citizens.66
The opinion by Lord Kerr, while dissenting, is rather important as it shows a slight
departure from the orthodox dualist views that municipal law should always remain superior
to international law. Lord Kerr’s views reflect a political tide, a paradigm shift of sorts, to
58
 R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  [2015] UKSC 16 (HL) (Lord Reed)
59
SG & Ors 27 (Lord Reed)
60
SG & Ors 29 (Lord Reed)
61
SG & Ors 30 (Lord Reed)
62
SG & Ors 30 (Lord Reed)
63
SG & Ors 83 (Lord Kerr)
64
SG & Ors 89 (Lord Kerr)
65
SG & Ors 89 (Lord Kerr)
66
SG & Ors 90 (Lord Kerr)
seeing international law – especially international human rights law - as a beacon of hope
and a protection for the disadvantaged. Lord Kerr foresaw that there will be backlash, as it
may seem that courts in common law states are attempting to make laws and bypass the
authority of the legislative bodies. With the recent demonstration of disdain by the English
populace for the European Union as exemplified by the Brexit vote, it may be hard to gauge
how the population as well as political authorities may view a court’s decision to step away
from its traditions and norms. Yet it is also important to note that human rights law has been
developed through international treaties and acts for many years and there indeed should be
some uniform international customary law norms that should be followed without the state
having to incorporate those treaties into municipal laws, which could be a cumbersome and
lengthy process.
IV. Conclusion
In the last two centuries, international law has become an increasingly strong force in
decisions issued by domestic courts. While most of continental Europe tends to follow the
monist approach of having international law and domestic law act together on tea me plane,
the more traditional approach taken by countries that have adopted the common law has been
that of dualism – that is domestic law governs courts’ decisions unless international law has
been ratified into domestic statutes. However, it has been increasingly hard for courts to
follow this traditional approach, as demonstrated in the evolvement of caselaw in the U.S.
since courts are constantly being asked to deal with issues that exceed the boundaries of the
state and have implications on the international community. The hybrid system that the
United States has adopted in the years since 1980 and the re-emergence of the ATS has set
American courts on a path of acceptance of international customary law norms. While the
UK and other common law states have remained loyal to the dualist approach of international
law and have through the years refused to accept international law and international treaties
as a persuasive authority in their decisions, as Lord Kerr suggested in his dissenting opinion,
it may be possible for international law concerning human rights violations to be an exception
to the Orthodox dualist view.67

67
SG & Ors 87 (Lord Kerr)
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACTS, STATUTES, GENERAL LEGISLATION

28 USCS § 1350 (1948)

Alien Tort Statute Reform Act, 109 Bill Tracking S. 1874 (October 17, 2005)

Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 c 25 Part 2 Section 20

Criminal Justice Act of 1988 c 133

Judiciary Act of 1789 § 9, 1 Stat 76-77

UNGA Res 3452, 30 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 34) 91, U.N.Doc. A/1034 (1975)

BOOKS

Oppenheim, L. and Hersch Lauterpacht Vol 1: Peace (8th D. McKay 1995)

Shaw, M.N. International Law (8th Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2017).

CASES

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

R. v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex p.  Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [2000] 1

A.C. 147 (HL)

R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p. Brind [1991] 1 A.C. 696 (HL)

 R (SG & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16

Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005)

Sosa v Alvarez-Machain 542 U.S. 692, 124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004)

The Paquete Habana  175 U.S. 677, 20 S. Ct. 290 (1900)

JOURNALS

Bellia, A.J. Jr. and Bradford R. Clark The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations 78 U.
Chi. L. Rev. 445

Martinez, Jenny S. Towards an International Judicial System, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 429

Turley, J. Dualistic Values in the Age of International Legisprudence 44 Hastings LJ 185

Waters, M.A “Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend Toward Interpretive Incorporation Of
Human Rights Treaties” 107 Colum. L. Rev. 628

LETTERS

Bolton, J.R. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security,
Washington, Letter to Kofi Annan, Secretary General, United Nations (May 6, 2002)

SYMPOSIUMS

Scalia, A. and Stephen Breyer A Conversation Between U.S. Supreme Court Justices
International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 3, Issue 4, 1 October 2005, 519