Customary International Law: How It Forms and Works

I. Customary International Law in Practice

Customary international law operates as the default legal framework of the international system. It governs situations in which treaty law is absent, incomplete, politically unusable, or deliberately avoided. For practitioners, judges, and advisers, it is not a theoretical residue of pre-treaty international law but a living source applied daily to questions of state responsibility, immunities, diplomatic protection, maritime entitlements, the use of force, non-intervention, countermeasures, and international humanitarian obligations. Its practical relevance lies precisely in its flexibility combined with legal constraint: it applies across states regardless of treaty consent, yet claims about its content must meet demanding evidentiary standards.

The operational importance of customary international law is most visible in international adjudication. In the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the International Court of Justice rejected the idea that repeated behaviour alone could generate a legal rule, stressing that consistent practice must be accompanied by a belief that such conduct is legally required (ICJ, 1969). This reasoning disciplined later attempts to elevate convenient patterns of behaviour into binding law. Similarly, in Nicaragua v United States, the Court relied extensively on customary rules governing the prohibition of the use of force and non-intervention because treaty obligations were limited by jurisdictional constraints (ICJ, 1986). The case illustrates a recurring pattern: when treaty pathways are blocked, customary international law becomes the decisive normative framework.

Outside courts, customary international law structures day-to-day legal advice within foreign ministries and defence departments. Questions such as the scope of diplomatic immunity, the legality of naval interdictions, or the attribution of conduct to the state are often assessed primarily through custom. The same is true in international humanitarian law, where many core obligations bind states regardless of treaty ratification and are invoked in military manuals, operational directives, and post-conflict accountability processes (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2005). In these contexts, custom functions as applied law, not as moral aspiration.

Yet the apparent simplicity of the two-element formula—general practice and opinio juris—conceals significant methodological difficulty. The International Law Commission has emphasized that identifying customary international law requires a careful evaluation of heterogeneous materials rather than impressionistic assertions about state behaviour (ILC, 2018). Practice may be geographically uneven, sector-specific, or driven by strategic self-interest rather than legal conviction. Official statements may blend legal justification with policy rhetoric, while silence or inaction can be ambiguous. These features explain why well-argued disputes often arise not over the existence of custom in the abstract, but over whether the available evidence satisfies the legal threshold in a concrete case.

A further practical challenge lies in visibility. Much legally relevant practice occurs through confidential diplomatic exchanges, internal legal advice, or classified operational decisions. As several scholars have noted, the public record may therefore underrepresent the true scope of practice and opinio juris, creating a risk of overstating certainty or prematurely declaring normative change. This does not undermine customary international law as a source; it reinforces the need for caution, transparency about evidentiary limits, and explicit reasoning when legal actors claim that a customary rule exists or has evolved.

Understanding customary international law as a practical tool rather than an abstract concept requires attention to how it is invoked, contested, and applied in real disputes. The sections that follow develop a disciplined method for identifying customary rules, evaluating evidence, and determining their content, using concrete examples across core fields of international law.

II. What Counts as a Customary Rule (and What Does Not)

Determining what qualifies as a rule of customary international law is a filtering exercise. The concept does not capture every recurring pattern of state behaviour, nor every widely endorsed political aspiration. A customary rule exists only when conduct is sufficiently general and consistent and is accompanied by acceptance as legally required. This section clarifies what falls inside that category and, just as importantly, what must be excluded to avoid transforming convenience, power, or rhetoric into law.

A. General Custom and Particular Custom

Customary international law is often assumed to be universal, yet doctrine and practice recognize both general and particular custom. General custom binds the international community as a whole, while particular or regional custom applies only among a defined group of states that share a consistent practice accepted as law among themselves. The evidentiary burden differs. General custom requires practice that is representative across regions and legal systems, whereas regional custom requires proof of a shared understanding limited to the participating states (International Court of Justice, 1950).

This distinction matters in practice. Claims framed as universal rules frequently collapse under scrutiny because the supporting practice is geographically narrow or driven by a small group of influential states. Treating such patterns as general customary international law risks conflating regional alignment or bloc practice with global obligation.

B. Customary International Law and Treaty Law: Three Distinct Relationships

Customary international law and treaty law interact in several legally distinct ways. First, treaties may codify pre-existing custom. In such cases, the treaty text reflects rules that already bind states independently of ratification. Second, treaties may crystallize emerging custom by consolidating developing practice and opinio juris into authoritative form. Third, treaties may contribute to the formation of new customary rules when their provisions are widely accepted and subsequently applied as law by both parties and non-parties.

These relationships must be distinguished carefully. Widespread treaty ratification alone does not prove the existence of customary international law. States may comply with treaty obligations out of consent rather than legal obligation erga omnes. Only where subsequent conduct and legal justification indicate that a rule is followed because it is regarded as law can treaty provisions migrate into custom (International Law Commission, 2018). Failure to draw this distinction leads to overinclusive claims that every popular treaty norm automatically binds non-parties.

C. Regular Behaviour, Policy Alignment, and Coincidence of Interests

One of the most common analytical errors is equating regular behaviour with customary international law. States often behave similarly for reasons unrelated to legal obligation, including military necessity, economic efficiency, political alignment, or technological constraint. Rational-choice accounts have long warned that coincidence of interests can generate stable patterns of conduct without producing law (Goldsmith and Posner, 1999).

Customary international law requires more than predictability. It requires evidence that states understand themselves to be legally constrained. For example, consistent naval practices motivated by operational convenience do not become law unless states articulate those practices as legally required or prohibited. Courts have repeatedly emphasized this distinction to prevent descriptive sociology from displacing normative analysis (International Court of Justice, 1969).

D. What Customary International Law Is Not

Several categories of material must be treated with caution or excluded altogether. Political declarations, aspirational resolutions, and generalized statements of principle do not constitute customary international law unless supported by corresponding practice and legal acceptance. Voting patterns in international organizations may support opinio juris, but they are rarely sufficient on their own. Academic commentary, while influential, does not create law and serves only as a subsidiary means of determination.

Equally important is the treatment of violations. Breaches of an alleged rule do not negate its existence if states characterize their conduct as unlawful or exceptional. However, repeated contrary conduct accompanied by justificatory silence or denial of legal obligation may indicate that no customary rule exists or that competing norms are in formation. The classification of conduct as breach or counter-evidence is therefore central to determining what counts as law.

E. The Function of Exclusion in Customary Analysis

Excluding weak candidates is not a defect of customary international law but a safeguard of its legitimacy. By insisting on disciplined thresholds, international law prevents power, preference, or rhetoric from being transformed into obligation. This filtering function explains why customary international law develops incrementally and why claims about its content must be precise, contextualized, and evidence-driven. Only by distinguishing clearly between law and non-law can customary international law continue to function as a credible and authoritative source in contemporary international practice.

III. Identification Method: A Practical Evidence Framework

Identifying customary international law is an evidentiary exercise governed by legal criteria, not intuition or policy preference. The process requires disciplined collection, classification, and evaluation of materials that demonstrate both a sufficiently general practice and acceptance of that practice as law. This section sets out a practical framework designed to guide judges, practitioners, and scholars through that task, drawing on authoritative doctrine, judicial practice, and institutional guidance.

A. The Two Constitutive Elements and Their Joint Assessment

Customary international law is traditionally identified through two constitutive elements: (i) a general practice and (ii) acceptance of that practice as law (opinio juris). These elements are analytically distinct but must be assessed together. Practice without opinio juris reflects habit or convenience; opinio juris without practice reflects aspiration rather than law. The International Law Commission has stressed that neither element has primacy in the abstract and that identification depends on a holistic appraisal of the evidence in context (International Law Commission, 2018).

This joint assessment is particularly important in contested areas. A dense record of conduct may be legally irrelevant if states consistently explain it in non-legal terms. Conversely, repeated legal assertions unsupported by conduct cannot generate obligation. The framework below operationalizes this joint inquiry.

B. Element One: General Practice

1. Forms of Practice

State practice encompasses a wide range of conduct attributable to the state. It includes physical acts, such as military operations or enforcement measures, as well as verbal acts, including diplomatic correspondence, official statements, pleadings before international courts, and explanations of vote. Legislative acts, administrative regulations, judicial decisions, and military manuals also constitute practice when they reflect how states organize and justify their conduct externally.

Practice must be assessed across executive, legislative, and judicial branches where relevant. Overreliance on one institutional channel risks misrepresenting the state’s overall position, particularly in systems where courts or legislatures play a limited role in foreign affairs (International Court of Justice, 1986).

2. Generality, Representativeness, and Consistency

Generality does not require universality. The prevailing standard is that practice must be sufficiently widespread and representative, taking into account different regions and legal traditions. Consistency matters more than numerical frequency. Sporadic or contradictory conduct weakens claims of custom unless states treat deviations as breaches rather than as lawful alternatives (International Court of Justice, 1969).

Special attention may be given to the practice of “specially affected” states, meaning those whose interests are particularly engaged by the alleged rule. This consideration does not grant veto power to a small group but reflects evidentiary relevance. For example, maritime practice by coastal states carries particular weight in assessing rules of the law of the sea (International Law Commission, 2018).

3. Silence and Inaction

Silence may constitute practice only where circumstances call for a reaction and the failure to respond can reasonably be interpreted as acquiescence. Absent such conditions, silence is ambiguous and should not be overinterpreted. Treating silence as acceptance without contextual justification risks manufacturing consent where none exists (Mendelson, 1998).

C. Element Two: Acceptance as Law (Opinio Juris)

1. Identifying Legal Motivation

Opinio juris refers to the belief that conduct is carried out because it is legally required or permitted. The strongest evidence consists of explicit legal justifications offered by states, including references to legal obligation, prohibition, or entitlement. Statements framed purely in political, moral, or strategic terms are weak indicators unless accompanied by legal reasoning.

Courts have consistently warned against inferring opinio juris from conduct alone. The danger lies in circularity: assuming legal obligation because conduct exists, then using that assumed obligation to explain the conduct (International Court of Justice, 1969).

2. Distinguishing Law from Policy

A central task is separating legal argument from policy rhetoric. Governments frequently invoke normative language without committing to legal obligation. For identification purposes, the key question is whether the state presents its position as legally compelled or merely desirable. This distinction is critical in areas such as the use of force, humanitarian intervention, and cyber operations, where policy narratives often outpace legal consensus.

Institutional caution on this point is well documented. States have repeatedly expressed concern that expansive readings of opinio juris risk conflating advocacy with law and undermining legal certainty (International Law Commission, 2018).

D. Evaluating Secondary Materials

Judicial decisions, resolutions of international organizations, reports of expert bodies, and scholarly writings play a subsidiary role. They assist in identifying and systematizing evidence but do not replace proof of practice and opinio juris. Judicial statements may carry significant persuasive authority, particularly when grounded in extensive evidentiary review, yet they remain interpretations rather than autonomous sources of custom.

Similarly, resolutions of international organizations may support findings of opinio juris when adopted with clear legal intent and supported by subsequent conduct. Their probative value diminishes where voting patterns reflect political alignment rather than legal conviction.

E. A Minimum Evidentiary Threshold for Claims of Custom

A defensible claim that a rule of customary international law exists should, at minimum, satisfy five criteria:

1. A precisely defined rule with identifiable scope and addressees.

2. Evidence of practice that is representative and sufficiently consistent.

3. Explicit indications that states regard the practice as legally required or permitted.

4. Engagement with contrary practice and reasoned classification of deviations as breaches, exceptions, or evidence against the rule.

5. Transparency about evidentiary limits and areas of uncertainty.

Applying this framework does not guarantee consensus, but it disciplines argumentation. It ensures that claims about customary international law rest on law-identifying methods rather than preference-driven assertions. The next section builds on this framework to examine how customary rules form, evolve, and encounter doctrinal stress in practice.

IV. Formation Dynamics and Doctrinal Stress Tests

The formation of customary international law is neither mechanically incremental nor normatively linear. Although doctrine often presents custom as the slow accumulation of practice accompanied by opinio juris, actual formation dynamics are shaped by contestation, acceleration, resistance, and interpretive stress. This section examines how customary rules emerge and change over time, and it tests the doctrine against scenarios that expose its structural limits.

A. Temporal Dynamics: Gradual Formation and Claims of Rapid Custom

Classical doctrine assumes that customary international law forms gradually through repeated conduct over time. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly emphasized duration, consistency, and repetition as relevant indicators, even while rejecting rigid temporal thresholds (ICJ, 1969). Time functions less as a numerical requirement and more as a proxy for stability and legal acceptance.

At the same time, claims of rapid or accelerated formation have emerged in response to technological change, systemic shocks, and humanitarian crises. Proponents argue that intense, coordinated reactions by states, coupled with explicit legal framing, can generate customary rules within a short period. Critics respond that such claims often collapse opinio juris into political urgency and underplay the need for sustained practice. The International Law Commission has taken a cautious position, accepting that no minimum duration is required in principle, but stressing that evidence must still demonstrate both elements convincingly (International Law Commission, 2018).

The practical lesson is restraint. Assertions of rapid custom require especially clear proof of legal acceptance across a representative group of states. Absent that proof, accelerated claims risk rebranding emerging norms or policy consensus as binding law.

B. The Persistent Objector Doctrine

The persistent objector doctrine represents one of the most cited, yet least successfully applied, mechanisms within customary international law. In theory, a state that persistently and openly objects to an emerging customary rule from its inception is not bound by that rule once it crystallizes. The doctrine reflects consent-based logic and aims to preserve sovereign equality.

In practice, its application is narrow. Courts rarely accept persistent objection, largely because states seldom object with the required clarity, consistency, and legal framing throughout the formative period. Objections must be explicit, maintained over time, and directed at the legal obligation itself rather than at particular applications or consequences. Opportunistic or delayed objections do not qualify (Brownlie, 2008).

Moreover, the doctrine does not operate against peremptory norms, nor does it excuse conduct that violates obligations owed to the international community as a whole. Its limited success rate underscores a broader point: customary international law tolerates dissent during formation, but it privileges consolidation and stability once a rule is established.

C. Breach, Contestation, and Competing Normative Claims

A recurrent stress test concerns how to interpret contrary practice. Not every deviation undermines a customary rule. If states acknowledge that their conduct departs from the law and seek to justify it as exceptional, unlawful, or excusable, the underlying rule may be reinforced rather than weakened. This logic is visible in cases where states deny responsibility while avoiding claims of legal entitlement (ICJ, 1986).

By contrast, sustained contrary practice accompanied by assertions of legality may indicate the absence of a rule or the emergence of a competing norm. The analytical challenge lies in classification. Treating all violations as evidence against custom collapses law into compliance. Treating all deviations as breaches risks immunizing contested rules from meaningful scrutiny. Doctrinal coherence depends on careful attention to how states characterize their own conduct.

D. Visibility, Evidence Gaps, and the Problem of Hidden Practice

Customary international law relies heavily on publicly accessible materials, yet much legally relevant practice remains hidden. Confidential diplomatic exchanges, internal legal advice, classified military assessments, and non-public operational decisions shape state conduct without entering the public record. This creates structural asymmetry: some states’ positions are overrepresented due to transparency, while others remain opaque.

Scholars and institutions have cautioned against drawing strong conclusions from incomplete datasets. Mendelson highlights the risk of mistaking evidentiary absence for normative consensus, particularly in sensitive areas such as security and intelligence (Mendelson, 1998). The International Law Commission similarly emphasizes the need for methodological humility and transparency about evidentiary limits (International Law Commission, 2018).

This problem does not invalidate customary international law, but it requires explicit acknowledgment. Claims about formation and change should reflect degrees of confidence rather than absolute certainty.

E. Doctrinal Stability and the Cost of Overextension

Formation dynamics also raise a systemic concern: overextension. Expanding customary international law too aggressively risks diluting its authority and undermining its acceptance by states. If legal obligation is inferred too readily from contested or thin evidence, states may disengage from custom as a meaningful source of law.

Doctrinal stress tests thus serve a stabilizing function. They force legal actors to justify claims carefully, confront counter-evidence, and articulate why a proposed rule meets the required threshold. This discipline preserves customary international law as a credible normative framework rather than a repository for aspirational or strategic claims.

V. Determining Content: Interpretation, Plasticity, and “New Facts”

Identifying the existence of a customary rule does not exhaust the legal task. Disputes more often turn on content: scope, addressees, thresholds, exceptions, and consequences. These questions require interpretation. Customary international law is not self-defining; its content is shaped through evidentiary choices and legal reasoning that can expand, narrow, or reframe the rule without any new practice being introduced. This section explains how interpretation operates, why plasticity is unavoidable, and how to assess claims that “new facts” alter the law.

A. Customary Rules Are Not Self-Interpreting

Unlike treaty provisions, customary rules lack an authoritative text. Their content must be inferred from practice and opinio juris, both of which are themselves interpretive artefacts. Selecting which acts count as practice, characterizing their legal meaning, and describing the norm they allegedly support are all interpretive steps. Mendelson underscores that disputes over custom frequently arise not because evidence is absent, but because reasonable interpreters can extract different rules from the same materials (Mendelson, 1998).

Courts often compress this interpretive work into brief formulations, presenting outcomes as determinations of law rather than as choices among plausible constructions. This judicial economy masks the extent to which interpretation shapes content. Recognizing this feature is essential to avoid treating customary international law as mechanically determinate.

B. Plasticity: How the Same Evidence Supports Different Rules

Plasticity refers to the capacity of customary international law to accommodate multiple plausible formulations based on the same evidentiary base. For example, practice relating to state immunity can be framed as supporting a broad rule of immunity, a narrower rule with functional exceptions, or a set of context-specific obligations. Each formulation draws on overlapping materials but differs in scope and consequence.

The International Law Commission has acknowledged this phenomenon implicitly by insisting on precision in defining the alleged rule before evaluating evidence (International Law Commission, 2018). Without precise definition, arguments slide between general propositions and narrow applications, giving the appearance of consensus where none exists. Plasticity is not a defect; it is a feature that demands methodological transparency.

C. Individuation: New Rule, Sub-Rule, or Application?

A recurring analytical problem is determining when a claim concerns a new customary rule, a sub-rule within an existing framework, or merely an application of an established rule to specific facts. This distinction is decisive because each category carries different evidentiary burdens.

If a claim introduces a new addressee, exception, or legal consequence, it should be treated as a new rule requiring independent proof of practice and opinio juris. If it refines the operation of an accepted rule without altering its core elements, it may qualify as a sub-rule. If it applies settled law to novel facts without changing normative content, the inquiry shifts to interpretation and analogy rather than formation.

Failure to individuate rules correctly leads to methodological shortcuts. Courts and commentators may rely on evidence supporting a general rule to justify a more specific proposition that has never been accepted as law. The result is normative drift disguised as application.

D. “New Facts” and the Risk of Silent Lawmaking

Technological change and evolving forms of state interaction frequently generate claims that customary international law has adapted to “new facts.” Cyber operations, autonomous weapons, and digital surveillance are prominent examples. The legal question is not whether existing rules are relevant, but whether their content changes without new evidence of acceptance as law.

Applying established customary rules to new factual contexts is legitimate where the underlying normative rationale remains intact. Altering thresholds, definitions, or consequences in response to new facts is not. Such changes require evidence that states accept the modified rule as law. Absent that evidence, claims of adaptation risk silent lawmaking through interpretation rather than lawful development through custom.

Judicial practice reflects caution on this point. Courts tend to anchor analysis in established rules and resist expansive reinterpretation without clear state support. This restraint preserves the distinction between application and creation, maintaining the credibility of customary international law as a source grounded in state acceptance.

E. Content Determination as a Discipline

Determining the content of customary international law demands explicit reasoning. Legal actors must state clearly how they define the rule, why that definition follows from the evidence, and how alternative formulations were excluded. Acknowledging interpretive choices does not weaken legal analysis; it strengthens it by exposing assumptions to scrutiny.

Customary international law remains authoritative not because it yields easy answers, but because it imposes disciplined methods for resolving uncertainty. Interpretation, plasticity, and engagement with new facts are unavoidable. The task is to manage them openly, ensuring that content determination remains tethered to evidence and legal acceptance rather than preference or convenience.

VI. Worked Examples Across Core Fields

This section applies the identification and content-determination framework to concrete fields where customary international law is routinely invoked. Each example proceeds in the same order: candidate rule, relevant practice, evidence of acceptance as law, treatment of contrary conduct, and conclusions about scope and certainty. The aim is methodological clarity rather than exhaustive case cataloguing.

A. Maritime Delimitation and the Threshold of Custom

Candidate rule: Claims that equidistance is a mandatory method of maritime delimitation under customary international law.

Practice: Following the Second World War, many bilateral delimitations employed equidistance lines, particularly among geographically proximate coastal states. Treaties and negotiated agreements showed recurring reliance on the method.

Acceptance as law: The decisive question was not frequency but legal motivation. In North Sea Continental Shelf, the International Court of Justice examined state explanations and found no evidence that equidistance was used because states regarded it as legally obligatory (ICJ, 1969). The Court emphasized the absence of opinio juris despite widespread practice.

Contrary conduct: Deviations were not framed as breaches but as equally lawful alternatives, undermining claims of obligation.

Conclusion: The case illustrates a core lesson: repeated behaviour does not become customary international law absent evidence of legal acceptance. It also shows judicial insistence on a high threshold where a proposed rule would significantly constrain state discretion.

B. Core Rules of International Humanitarian Law as Custom

Candidate rule: The principles of distinction and proportionality as binding customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Practice: Extensive state practice appears in military manuals, operational directives, national legislation, and battlefield conduct across diverse regions. Practice is not uniform, but deviations are frequently justified as factual compliance rather than as lawful alternatives.

Acceptance as law: States routinely frame these principles as legal obligations in official statements, pleadings, and training materials. The International Committee of the Red Cross compiled this material systematically, presenting rules as reflective of customary international law (ICRC, 2005).

Contrary conduct: Violations are commonly denied or excused, not defended as lawful. This pattern supports the classification of deviations as breaches rather than counter-evidence.

Conclusion: Despite methodological critiques of aggregation and weighting, the evidentiary record supports the existence of these rules as customary international law with a high degree of confidence, illustrating how dense and diversified evidence can sustain custom even in conflict settings.

C. State Immunity and Accountability Tensions

Candidate rule: The scope of state immunity before domestic courts in civil proceedings alleging serious human rights violations.

Practice: Many states maintain legislation and judicial practice recognizing immunity for sovereign acts. A smaller group has experimented with exceptions in limited contexts.

Acceptance as law: States invoking immunity typically justify it as required by international law, while those limiting immunity often rely on domestic constitutional reasoning or policy preferences rather than claims that international law mandates the exception.

Contrary conduct: Divergent national judgments reveal contestation. The International Court of Justice, in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, treated immunity as a customary rule unaffected by the gravity of the alleged conduct, emphasizing the absence of widespread acceptance of a contrary legal obligation (ICJ, 2012).

Conclusion: This example demonstrates the importance of individuation. Evidence supporting a general rule of immunity cannot be repurposed to establish an unaccepted exception without independent proof of practice and opinio juris.

D. Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity

Candidate rule: The obligation to respect the right of self-determination in the context of decolonization.

Practice: State conduct following the end of colonial administration frequently involved recognition of new states and support for independence processes supervised by international bodies.

Acceptance as law: States consistently articulated self-determination as a legal entitlement, not merely a political aspiration, in official statements and votes. The International Court of Justice treated the obligation as customary in its advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago (ICJ, 2019).

Contrary conduct: Resistance by administering powers was framed in terms of competing legal claims rather than denial of the principle itself.

Conclusion: The example shows how strong opinio juris, coupled with coordinated practice, can consolidate a customary rule with erga omnes character, even amid political dispute.

E. Cyber Operations and the Limits of Analogy

Candidate rule: The application of customary rules on sovereignty, non-intervention, and use of force to cyber operations.

Practice: Publicly acknowledged cyber practice is sparse and uneven. States conduct operations covertly, limiting observable conduct.

Acceptance as law: While many states assert that existing international law applies to cyberspace, their statements diverge on thresholds and consequences. Legal justifications often stop at general applicability without specifying binding rules.

Contrary conduct: Silence and ambiguity dominate, making classification difficult.

Conclusion: Existing customary international law may apply by analogy, but claims that new, specific cyber rules have crystallized lack sufficient evidence. This example underscores the risk of silent lawmaking through interpretation rather than demonstrated acceptance.

Across these fields, the same methodological discipline yields different outcomes. Customary international law emerges where practice is representative, legal justification is explicit, and deviations are treated as breaches. It fails to crystallize where evidence supports multiple lawful alternatives or where legal acceptance remains ambiguous.

Also Read

• International Law and Municipal Law

• The Sources of International Law

• International Law as a Unitary System

• Introduction to International Law

• What Is International Law?

VII. Common Failure Modes and How to Write a Sound CIL Argument

Sound analysis of customary international law depends less on citing large volumes of material than on avoiding recurrent methodological errors. Many flawed arguments fail not because evidence is unavailable, but because it is misclassified, overinterpreted, or selectively presented. This section identifies the most common failure modes and sets out a disciplined template for constructing a legally credible argument.

A. Frequent Failure Modes in Customary Analysis

1. Conflating treaty participation with custom

A persistent error is assuming that widespread treaty ratification establishes customary international law. Consent-based compliance does not demonstrate acceptance as law erga omnes. Only subsequent conduct framed as legally required beyond treaty obligation can support a customary claim (International Law Commission, 2018).

2. Treating political alignment as legal obligation

Voting patterns, joint statements, or coordinated policies often reflect strategic alignment rather than legal conviction. Elevating such materials to opinio juris without corroborating legal justification converts politics into law by assertion (Brownlie, 2008).

3. Ignoring contrary practice or misclassifying it

Arguments frequently omit inconvenient evidence or dismiss it summarily as “violations.” Proper analysis must engage with contrary conduct and explain, with reasons, why it represents breach, exception-claiming, or evidence against the rule (International Court of Justice, 1969).

4. Collapsing practice and opinio juris into a single inquiry

Inferring legal obligation directly from behaviour risks circular reasoning. Courts have repeatedly warned against assuming that practice exists because law exists, then using that assumption to prove the law (International Court of Justice, 1986).

5. Overreliance on secondary sources

Judicial dicta, resolutions, and academic writings assist analysis but cannot replace evidence of state conduct and legal acceptance. Treating commentary as primary proof undermines the evidentiary structure of customary international law (Shaw, 2017).

6. Overstating certainty despite evidentiary gaps

Claims framed in absolute terms often ignore the reality of hidden practice and ambiguous materials. Overconfidence erodes credibility and invites rejection by courts and practitioners (Mendelson, 1998).

B. Structuring a Sound Customary International Law Argument

A defensible argument should follow a transparent and repeatable structure:

Define the candidate rule precisely

Specify scope, addressees, thresholds, and any claimed exceptions. Vague formulations allow evidence to be stretched beyond its probative value.

Map relevant practice systematically

Identify acts attributable to states across regions and legal systems, noting consistency and representativeness. Explain why certain practice carries particular evidentiary weight.

Demonstrate acceptance as law

Present materials where states articulate legal obligation, entitlement, or prohibition. Distinguish clearly between legal reasoning and policy preference.

Address counter-evidence directly

Identify contrary conduct and explain its legal characterization. Silence, ambiguity, and denial require contextual justification, not assumption.

State the level of confidence

Conclude by indicating whether the evidence supports a high, medium, or low degree of certainty. Acknowledging uncertainty strengthens, rather than weakens, legal credibility.

C. The Value of Methodological Restraint

Methodological restraint is not conservatism; it is legal hygiene. Customary international law derives authority from disciplined identification, not from ambition. Arguments that respect evidentiary thresholds, confront counter-arguments, and disclose uncertainty are more persuasive to courts, advisers, and scholars alike. By contrast, overinclusive or selectively reasoned claims risk turning customary international law into a rhetorical device rather than a source of law.

A sound argument, therefore, does not seek to maximize the reach of custom. It seeks to demonstrate, carefully and transparently, where the law genuinely exists and where it does not.

VIII. Conclusion

Customary international law endures because it provides a disciplined legal method for identifying binding norms in a decentralized international system. Its authority does not rest on moral appeal, political consensus, or repetition of conduct alone, but on a structured assessment of evidence demonstrating both general practice and acceptance as law. When applied rigorously, it constrains power, fills normative gaps, and enables legal reasoning in contexts where treaty law is silent, fragmented, or strategically avoided.

This article has shown that the central challenges of customary international law arise not at the level of abstract definition, but at the stages of identification and content determination. Claims about custom succeed or fail based on evidentiary discipline: precise formulation of the alleged rule, careful mapping of representative practice, explicit demonstration of legal motivation, and principled engagement with contrary conduct. Interpretation, plasticity, and engagement with new factual contexts are unavoidable features of this process, but they must be managed transparently to prevent silent norm creation.

Worked examples across maritime law, humanitarian law, immunity, self-determination, and cyber operations illustrate that customary international law is neither uniformly expansive nor inherently conservative. It crystallizes where evidence is dense, diversified, and legally framed, and it resists consolidation where practice reflects multiple lawful alternatives or where legal acceptance remains ambiguous. This variability is a strength, not a weakness. It preserves the legitimacy of custom as law rather than aspiration.

Ultimately, customary international law remains credible only if legal actors resist the temptation to treat it as a vehicle for preferred outcomes. Methodological restraint, acknowledgment of uncertainty, and fidelity to evidentiary thresholds are essential. When these conditions are met, customary international law continues to function as a reliable and authoritative source, capable of guiding courts, advisers, and states through the most contested questions of contemporary international practice.

References

1. Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of Public International Law. 7th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Goldsmith, J.L. and Posner, E.A. (1999) ‘A theory of customary international law’, University of Chicago Law Review, 66(4), pp. 1113–1177.

3. International Committee of the Red Cross (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Vol. I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. International Court of Justice (1950) Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru), Judgment of 20 November 1950. ICJ Reports 1950, p. 266.

5. International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969. ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3.

6. International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986. ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

7. International Court of Justice (2012) Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012. ICJ Reports 2012, p. 99.

8. International Court of Justice (2019) Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019. ICJ Reports 2019, p. 95.

9. International Law Commission (2018) Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2018, Vol. II, Part Two. New York: United Nations.

10. Mendelson, M. (1998) ‘The formation of customary international law’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, 272, pp. 155–410.

11. Shaw, M.N. (2017). International Law. 8th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. United Nations (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331.