Talk:Opinio juris sive necessitatis

International relations: Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

State application isn't a particularly good example of customary international law, and in general does not add anything to the meaning of opinio juris sive necessitatis. Should most likely be removed, or replaced with an example where opinio juris has been important (which would probably be one of the cases from the ICJ, but I'm not particulary enamoured with this area of public international law). I believe one of the cases that could be a good example has something to do with a Peruvian, and safe passage from an embassy to Colombia willing to give asylum. Name escapes me however.

On another note, this article overlaps with customary international law and with sources of international law - any changes here should probably be checked on those other two pages. Sephui 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were thinking of the Asylum case, 1950 ICJ 266, Colombia v. Peru, downgrading regional custom.John Z (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The description does match the Asylum case. But that still deals with international custom, though as John Z points out, regional custom. IMHO (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custom is recognized in domestic jurisdictions that are part of the Civil law (legal system). Practice and belief in legal obligation are also the two main requirements. In the case of domestic law, however, custom is inferior to laws and regulations enacted by the State, for obvious reasons. The only source I am familiar with, and I believe is generally a good work for explaining the Civil Law tradition to people from Common law jurisdictions is John Henry Merryman's The Common Law Tradition, second editions ISBN is 0-8047-1248-4. It does not use the terms practice, opinio juris sive necessitatis , or opinio juris, but it still describes the same requirements.

Nevertheless, I agree that the example given is off, but my understanding is that self defense is included in the code of most, if not all, Civil Law jurisdictions. I do know that it is in most if not all of the US jurisdictions codes. So I suspect the inclusion is just wrong all around. Even if there is a jurisdiction that only has self defense as custom, the paragraph speaks to the specific fact situation required, not to the societal belief supporting self defense as legal.IMHO (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of opinio juris or somesuch section should be added

Yet another thing I'd like to add, but may never get to. A section should be made on what acts can constitute opinio juris and how such acts are examined to determine if they do. Maybe some specific examples. Hopefully someone will have the energy to add this. IMHO (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

Perhaps the article should be moved to Opinio juris? The "sive necessitatis" part is almost never used. ImTheIP (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]