Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T05:28:24.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

MODERATOR: Anthony D’Amato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Anthony D’Amato
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Isaak Dore
Affiliation:
Saint Louis University School of Law
Peter Weiss
Affiliation:
Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City
Charles Marvin
Affiliation:
Georgia State University College of Law
Grigori Tunkin
Affiliation:
Soviet Association of International Law; Professor, Moscow State University Faculty of Law
Ingrid Detter De Lupis
Affiliation:
University of Stockholm; also affiliated with the London School of Economics
Daniel M. Price
Affiliation:
Of the Pennsylvania Bar
Joan Hartman
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Elisabeth Zoller
Affiliation:
Université de Strasbourg
Istvan Pogany
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Hilary Charlesworth
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Gregory Fox
Affiliation:
Of the Massachusetts Bar
Rein Mullerson
Affiliation:
Department of International Law, Academy of Sciences, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Ingrid Kircher
Affiliation:
Amnesty International, U.N. Office
William B.T. Mock Jr.
Affiliation:
The John Marshall School of Law

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The Theory of Customary International Law
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 D’Amato, The President and International Law: A Missing Dimension, 81 AJIL 375 (1987).

2 E. ZOLLER, PEACETIME UNILATERAL REMEDIES: AN ANALYSIS OF COUNTERMEASURES (1984).

3 Von Daniel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 623 F. Supp. 246 (D.D.C. 1985).

4 Editor’s note: On June 29, 1988, amended July 6, 1988, Judge Edmund L. Palmieri of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 695 F. Supp. 1456 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), available in 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6388, in which he concluded, inter alia, that the act and the agreement “cannot be reconciled except by finding the [act] inapplicable to the PLO Observer Mission.” Id. at 25. Noting “the special responsibility which the United States has to provide access to the United Nations under the Headquarters Agreement,” id at 6, Judge Palmieri found no “clear legislative intent that Congress [in the Anti-Terrorism Act] was directing the Attorney General, the State Department or this Court to act in contravention of the Headquarters Agreement.” Id. at 23. See also 27 ILM 1055 (1988). For an interesting discussion of this issue, see the panel on the PLO Mission controversy, infra, at 534.

5 D’Amato, Trashing Customary International Law, 81 AJIL 101 (1987).

6 Boyle, International Law in Time of Crisis: From the Entebbe Raid to the Hostages Convention, 75 Nw. U.L. REV. 769 (1980).