Prof. Sellers writes: > Prof. Martin has suggested using customary international law to make the U.S. > Constitution more understandable. The danger of this way of thinking lies in > supposing that customary international law is more determinate than it is in > fact. (And the temptation that this may create to defer to supposed > authorities about the content of customary international law.)
COMMENT: Customary international law has become quite determinate since the proliferation of multilateral treaties reflecting extant or emerging customary international law over the last 100 years. Granted, customary international law in the 18th century often was not clearly defined; hence, the Framers gave Congress the power to define offenses against the law of nations. Prof. Sellers continues: >The framers of > the U.S. Constitution would have said that international customs are good > evidence of the content of international law, but that they are not themselves > sources of law, and cannot change the nature of preexisting universal human > rights. COMMENT: I do not understand the last clause of your statement. Please explain. Francisco Forrest Martin
