Natural law has come up again on our list, in a way that recalls several earlier discussions about universal human rights and international law. Wheaton (following Madison) defined international law as "those rules of conduct which reason deduces, as consonant to justice, from the nature of the society existing among independent nations". These rules can be clarified (Wheaton explained) by consulting the writings of scholars, international treaties, the ordinances of particular states, the adjudications of international tribunals, and the history of war and peace, but they rest in the end on nature, not positive law.
Similarly, the United States Constitution enumerates several fundamental rights, but also acknowledges other rights retained by the people. The framers recognized such rights as "self-evident" and "unalienable". Human rights rest in the end on reason and nature, not positive law, and it is only through securing these rights that governments legitimate their own existence.
This at least was the view of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, as applied both to domestic and to international law.
Tim Sellers
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
Prof. M.N.S. Sellers Regents Professor of the University System of Maryland Director, Center for International and Comparative Law University of Baltimore School of Law 1420 North Charles St. Baltimore, Maryland 21201-5779 telephone:410-837-4532 facsimile:410-837-4396
