Ex factis jus oritur

Last updated

Ex factis jus oritur (Latin: the law arises from the facts) is a principle of international law. The phrase is based on the simple notion that certain legal consequences attach to particular facts. [1] Its rival principle is ex injuria jus non oritur in which unjust acts cannot create law. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

Stimson Doctrine Policy that the United States will not recognize countries created by aggression

The Stimson Doctrine is the policy of nonrecognition of states created as a result of aggression. The policy was implemented by the United States federal government, enunciated in a note of January 7, 1932, to the Empire of Japan and the Republic of China, of non-recognition of international territorial changes that were executed by force. The doctrine was an application of the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur. While some analysts have applied the doctrine in opposition to governments established by revolution, this usage is not widespread, and its invocation usually involves treaty violations.

A brocard is a legal maxim in Latin that is, in a strict sense, derived from traditional legal authorities, even from ancient Rome. The word is a variant of the Latinized name of Burchard of Worms, Bishop of Worms, Germany, who compiled 20 volumes of Ecclesiastical Rules.

Jus sanguinis is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality or ethnicity of one or both parents. Children at birth may be citizens of a particular state if either or both of their parents have citizenship of that state. It may also apply to national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins. Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship. This principle contrasts with jus soli, which is solely based on the place of birth.

The term status quo ante bellum is a Latin phrase meaning "the situation as it existed before the war".

Jus ad bellum is a set of criteria that are to be consulted before engaging in war in order to determine whether entering into war is permissible, that is, whether it is a just war.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Any child born in the United States is a US citizen from birth, with the sole exception of children born to a parent or parents with diplomatic immunity, since such parent is not a "subject to the US law" as the decision requires.

Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.

The principle of postliminium, as a part of public international law, is a specific version of the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur, providing for the invalidity of all illegitimate acts that an occupant may have performed on a given territory after its recapture by the legitimate sovereign. Therefore, if the occupant has appropriated and sold public or private property that may not legitimately be appropriated by a military occupant, the original owner may reclaim that property without payment of compensation. It derives from the jus posiliminii, of Roman law. The codification of large areas of international law have made postliminium to a great extent superfluous though. It may either be seen as a historical concept, or a term generally describing the consequences to legal acts of an occupant after the termination of occupation.

Uti possidetis is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if such a treaty does not include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory taken during the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail. Originating in Roman law, the phrase is derived from the Latin expression uti possidetis, ita possideatis, meaning "may you continue to possess such as you do possess". This principle enables a belligerent party to claim territory that it has acquired by war.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

Israeli Supreme Court opinions on the West Bank Barrier

On two occasions the Israeli Government has been instructed by the Supreme Court of Israel (SCI) to alter the route of the barrier to ensure that negative effects on Palestinians would be minimized and proportional.

State continuity of the Baltic states Legal continuity of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania under international law during their occupation from 1940-91

State continuity of the Baltic states describes the continuity of the Baltic states as legal entities under international law while under Soviet rule and German occupation from 1940 to 1991. The prevailing opinion accepts the Baltic thesis of illegal occupation and the actions of the USSR are regarded as contrary to international law in general and to the bilateral treaties between the USSR and the Baltic states in particular.

<i>Ius</i>

Ius or Jus in ancient Rome was a right to which a citizen (civis) was entitled by virtue of his citizenship (civitas). The iura were specified by laws, so ius sometimes meant law. As one went to the law courts to sue for one's rights, ius also meant justice and the place where justice was sought.

The subject of birth aboard aircraft and ships is one with a long history in public international law. The law on the subject is complex, because various states apply differing principles of nationality, namely jus soli and jus sanguinis, to varying degrees and with varying qualifications.

Paraguayan nationality law

Paraguayan nationality law is based on the principle of Jus soli. The nationality law is based on the Chapter 3 of the Paraguayan Constitution of 1992. The legal means to acquire nationality, formal membership in a nation, differ from the relationship of rights and obligations between a national and the nation, known as citizenship.

Facts on the ground is a diplomatic and geopolitical term that means the situation in reality as opposed to in the abstract.

Ex injuria jus non oritur is a principle of international law. The phrase implies that "illegal acts do not create law". Its rival principle is ex factis jus oritur, in which the existence of facts creates law.

<i>Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)</i>

Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens[2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords.

Iura novit curia is a Latin legal maxim expressing the principle that "the court knows the law", i.e., that the parties to a legal dispute do not need to plead or prove the law that applies to their case. The maxim is sometimes quoted as jura novit curia, iura noscit curia, curia iura novit, curia novit legem or variants thereof.

The “Namibia exception” identifies the Advisory Opinion issued on 21 June 1971 by the International Court of Justice (I.C.J), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). The opinion refers to the "Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)".

References

  1. Gérard Kreijen (2002). State, sovereignty, and international governance. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199245383.
  2. Tim Hillier (1998). Sourcebook on public international law. Routledge. ISBN   9781859410509.