International Law

International law is the term commonly used for referring to the system of implicit and explicit agreements that bind together nation-states in adherence to recognized values and standards, differing from other legal systems in that it concerns nations rather than private citizens.
However, the term "International Law" can refer to three distinct legal disciplines:

Public international law, which involves for instance the United Nations, maritime law, international criminal law and the Geneva conventions.
Private international law, or conflict of laws, which addresses the questions of (1) in which legal jurisdiction may a case be heard; and the law concerning which jurisdiction(s) apply to the issues in the case.
Supranational law or the law of supranational organizations, which concerns at present regional agreements where the special distinguishing quality is that laws of nation states are held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal system.

The two traditional branches of the field are:

jus gentium - law of nations
jus inter gentes - agreements among nations

Public international law (or international public law) concerns the relationships between subjects of international law, including sovereign nations, international organizations, and in some cases, movements of national liberation (wars of national liberation) and armed insurrectional movements.
The norms of international law have their source in either custom (consistent state practice with opinio juris), globally accepted standards of human behaviour (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or codifications contained in conventional agreements, i.e., treaties. Article 13 of the UN Charter obligates the General Assembly to initiate studies and make recommendations which encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification. Evidence of consensus or state practice can sometimes be derived from intergovernmental resolutions or academic and expert legal opinions (soft law).

International law has existed since the Middle Ages (As the Islamic international law), but much of its modern corpus began developing from the middle of the 19th century.
The two World Wars, the League of Nations and other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization all contributed to accelerate this process and established much of the foundations of modern public international law.
After the failure of the Treaty of Versailles and World War II, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, founded under the UN Charter.
The UN has developed new advisory standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Other international norms and laws have been established through international agreements; e.g. the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war or armed conflict, as well as by other international organizations such as:

ILO.
World Health Organization.
World Intellectual Property Organization.
International Telecommunication Union.
UNESCO.
World Trade Organization.
International Monetary Fund.

Thus later law is of great importance in the realm of international relations

International litigation

International litigation (sometime called "transnational litigation") is the practice of litigation in connection with disputes among businesses or individuals residing or based in different countries.

The main difference between international litigation and domestic litigation is that, in the former, certain issues are more likely to be of significance -such as personal jurisdiction, service of process, evidence from abroad, and enforcement of judgments.

Jurisdiction

Although there are differences among the jurisdictional statutes of many American states, they all are subject to the due process requirements imposed by the Constitution of the United States.
As a result, most American lawyers who are familiar with general principles of jurisdiction in one or more states of the US are able to guide their clients through jurisdictional issues throughout the United States.

The situation is different with respect to jurisdictional principles in the international context. The first difference concerns Long arm jurisdiction, which is the statutory grant of jurisdiction to local courts over out-of-state defendants.
A long-arm statute authorizes a court in a state to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
Without a long arm statute, the courts in a state might not have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
A state's authorization to exercise jurisdiction is limited by the federal Constitution.
The use of a long arm statute is usually considered constitutional where the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state and there has been reasonable notice of the action against that defendant.

Second, many countries take the view that American concepts of long-arm jurisdiction are too broad, and courts of such countries will not recognize judgments based on the exercise of American long-arm jurisdiction.

Looking at the issue from the non-American perspective, courts in some countries exercise jurisdiction based upon principles that American courts would consider unfair and repugnant to American law.

For example, in some countries, such as England and Israel, a court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that is considered to be a "necessary or proper" party in a case against a local defendant.
It is not clear that such a jurisdictional basis would be upheld by American courts.

Trial Considerations

Once a lawsuit proceeds past the discovery stage and is ready for trial, the differences between domestic litigation and international litigation are much less pronounced.
Nonetheless, there are special issues involving non-US litigants.

Depending upon the language sophistication of the witnesses on behalf of the non-US party, it might be necessary to arrange for an interpreter to translate trial testimony.
Interpreters cost money, which increases the costs of the trial.

Recognition/Enforcement

In the domestic US context, the recognition of judgments is governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the federal Constitution. Full faith and credit does not apply to non-US judgments. The United States is not a party to any multilateral treaty governing the recognition of foreign judgments. Nonetheless, the approach of American courts to the recognition of non-US judgments has been a liberal one, ever since the US Supreme Court's decision in Hilton v. Guyot. Most states in the US have enacted the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, which governs the recognition of non-US judgments. As a general rule, under the Uniform Act, grounds for non-recognition can be predicated upon: * Lack of conclusiveness: if the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law. * the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. * The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter; * The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend; * The judgment was obtained by fraud; * The cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of the state where enforcement is sought; * The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment; * The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in that court; or * In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action; or * The judgment seeks to enforce the revenue and taxation laws of a foreign jurisdiction.

Who Practices International Litigation?

Conventional wisdom has been that the multinational law firms have a monopoly on the practice of international litigation.
More recently, smaller law firms have entered the field of international litigation.

UN International Law

Office of Legal Affairs

Composition and mandate of the Office of Legal Affairs.

Sixth Committee

Current information on agenda items, summaries of work, and documents.