Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
[12] Huber "believed that comity was a principle of international law" but also that "the decision to apply foreign law itself was left up to the state as an act of free will." [ 10 ] Huber did not believe comity was a stand-alone principle but rather saw it as a basis for building concrete rules and doctrines of law. [ 13 ]
A peremptory norm or jus cogens (Latin for "compelling law" or "strong law") is a principle of international law considered so fundamental that it overrides all other sources of international law, including even the Charter of the United Nations. The principle of jus cogens is enshrined in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
The sources of international law include international custom (general state practice accepted as law), treaties, and general principles of law recognised by most national legal systems. Although international law may also be reflected in international comity —the practices adopted by states to maintain good relations and mutual recognition ...
Many states continue to recognize the principle of comity as the underpinning of private international law such as in Canada. [19] In some countries, such as the United States of America and Australia, the principle of comity is written into the State's constitution. [20]
Under international law, this authority is part of the doctrine of comity. The court will invoke comity by its discretion and will usually look to two factors before using its discretionary powers: did the foreign court have jurisdiction, and were fair procedures used in adjudicating the case? Under English law, it is the doctrine of obligation.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625, "The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States" was adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970, during a commemorative session to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations. [1]
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued.
The underlying principles, such as basing respect given to foreign courts on reciprocal respect or comity, also apply in civil law systems in the form of the legal doctrine of lis alibi pendens. Forum non conveniens is not exclusive to common law nations: the maritime courts of the Republic of Panama , although not a common law jurisdiction ...