Exactly what was the binding international custom found by the court in the Abdullahi case?
What sources did the majority rely on to find a customary international law binding in the U.S.?
Why did the dissenting judge disagree?
Why did the Court not accept the argument made by Denmark and the Netherlands that the equidistance principle, as articulated in Article 6(2) of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, had become a rule of customary law?
What do you understand the term "opinio juris" to mean?
How much state practice would satisfy the Court that the practice had become a customary rule?
How would you set about proving the motivation for a state's practice?
Do you agree with the dissenters who argue that state practice should be presumed to spring out of a sense of legal obligation unless it is proved otherwise?