We most definitely cite international rulings but our own laws prevent us from using them as precedent.
This is a matter of sovereignty - if we started using international rulings/laws/precedents as formal declaration and settings for our own rulings, we are no longer our own sovereign nation and thusly might as well throw down our Constitution.
This is most definitely not a simple matter, but in any case, we do cite foreign law and rulings but only as examples of viewpoints throughout the world and ONLY at the supreme court level. It is actually agains the law for the supreme court or any other US court to use foreign law to set our own.
Congress is currently working to even remove the allowance of international rulings/laws from being officially cited in rulings. It is being proposed that if foreign law is to be cited, it must be done so in non-ruling briefs and other "informal" documents.
Slashdot Mirror
We most definitely cite international rulings but our own laws prevent us from using them as precedent.
This is a matter of sovereignty - if we started using international rulings/laws/precedents as formal declaration and settings for our own rulings, we are no longer our own sovereign nation and thusly might as well throw down our Constitution.
This is most definitely not a simple matter, but in any case, we do cite foreign law and rulings but only as examples of viewpoints throughout the world and ONLY at the supreme court level. It is actually agains the law for the supreme court or any other US court to use foreign law to set our own.
Congress is currently working to even remove the allowance of international rulings/laws from being officially cited in rulings. It is being proposed that if foreign law is to be cited, it must be done so in non-ruling briefs and other "informal" documents.