Analysis “The Case for Writing International Law into the U.S. Code” argues that the judiciary system of the United States would better enforce international law within the country through statutory enactments from the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. The United States has a history of virtually resisting any amount of power that international law may hold within the U.S. legal system, and this article further explains why. It then suggests ways in which this resistance can be reversed. J.F. Coyle first discusses the role of international law in the U.S. Legal System. He explains that international law can recognized within the United States under considerable circumstances. The three branches of the U.S. Federal government each have a role in this incorporation of international law. However, the judiciary branch tends to take lead on this topic. The debate of its existence in the United States comes from two sides: the international; and the domestic. Respectively, internationalists argue that there should be more application of international litigation by United States’ courts. Nationalists, on the other hand, favor more of a …show more content…
He goes onto explain that anyone in the past who had favored the inclusion of international law in U.S. courts “have sought to address these attitudinal and experiential obstacles via direct appeals to the U.S. judiciary”. There had been many attempts to remove restrictions placed upon those who use international law domestically, as well as encouraging judges to educate themselves in international litigation. Despite the suggestions and efforts made, the U.S. judiciary has essentially become less open to these suggestions. However, Coyle argues that with potential enactments from the other branches, leaders within the U.S. Courts may change their negative attitudes in regards to referencing their rule of decision to international