# Oklahoma's Banning of International Law and Its Relation to Business **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722 "2010-11-06T18:51:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/41 "2010-11-08T08:19:35Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > As a result, all religious-based arbitration methods (including Jewish arbitration methods, which had been in place for quite some time) were disallowed. Wasn’t aware of the Ontario experience, but when I saw the OK amendment my immediate thought was “How does this affect a Beth Din?” ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/42 "2010-11-08T08:51:01Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Wasn’t aware of the Ontario experience, but when I saw the OK amendment my immediate thought was “How does this affect a Beth Din?” In Canada, the Beth Din’s decision would likely be disallowed, unless both parties agreed to its decision in front of a judge of a neutral court: provincial or Queen’s Bench/Superior Court, as appropriate. If one party disagreed with the religious body’s decision in front of the judge, it would not stand; and I’d guess that the matter would have to be decided upon by the (neutral) Court; or by a neutral, non-religious, arbitrator. Note that this is only my guess; I have no experience in these matters. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/43 "2010-11-08T15:36:17Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > The idea that US courts should _never_ look to foreign law is just another example of US exceptionalism, and of how Americans need to get over ourselves. I’m as, or more, anti-American exceptionalism as the next guy, but the idea that American judges should use American laws and precedents in our court cases isn’t American exceptionalism. It’s the same reason we don’t let Ohioans vote in Californian elections. Not Californian exceptionalism, but Californian Government isn’t the same as Ohioan Government. Sure, they are very similar (far more than two separate countries), but they’re not the same. There’s nothing inherent **wrong** with citing a foreign decision, but it’s absolutely not necessary or preferred. ---
**Author:** ![Ionizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5daacb/32.png) [@Ionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ionizer)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/44 "2010-11-08T22:16:01Z")
Its been blocked already. See [here](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20101108/us-islamic-law-lawsuit/) From the article: _U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the order after an Oklahoma man filed a lawsuit claiming the amendment stigmatized his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law._ _“My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith,” said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose.”_ I hope this carries some legal ‘weight’, but I have no idea at all. Just posting it here for those ‘in the know’ to comment upon… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/45 "2010-11-08T22:20:56Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > International law is sometimes based on treaties that the US has formally joined, which makes it binding law that the states cannot ignore. > > I have a good friend who lives in Oklahoma who is convinced that the state is populated with morons. Empedocles the Cretan says all Cretans are liars. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/46 "2010-11-08T22:26:41Z")
> [@Ionizer](#): > > Its been blocked already. See [here](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20101108/us-islamic-law-lawsuit/) > > From the article: > _U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the order after an Oklahoma man filed a lawsuit claiming the amendment stigmatized his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law._ > > _“My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith,” said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose.”_ > I hope this carries some legal ‘weight’, but I have no idea at all. Just posting it here for those ‘in the know’ to comment upon… Now **there** is an interesting, unintended consequence. Although I don’t see how/why that would invalidate his Will, unless he was nonspecific in who got what in his will and just said “divide it up according to Sharia Law.” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/47 "2010-11-08T22:42:12Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Although I don’t see how/why that would invalidate his Will, unless he was nonspecific in who got what in his will and just said “divide it up according to Sharia Law.” Well, if the guy on his own said, “Item-A goes to my wife, Item-B goes to my son, etc.” and that was in compliance with Sharia law no court would care. He can give his stuff away as he sees fit for whatever reasons he wants. However, if the guy says, “I want my assets sold in compliance with Sharia law and divided up in these percentages to these people/groups also in compliance with Sharia law” then presumably the OK courts would have to ignore that. Particularly if the will is contested. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/48 "2010-11-08T23:20:19Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Now **there** is an interesting, unintended consequence. How is it unintended? If the amendment is not aimed at preventing people from regulating their affairs by reference to Sharia principles, then what is it for? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/49 "2010-11-09T04:10:50Z")
And, I rather suspect this gentleman rewrote his will recently to make it specific about sharia law, in order to be able to file suit. Good on 'im. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/50 "2010-11-10T06:42:31Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I’m as, or more, anti-American exceptionalism as the next guy, but the idea that American judges should use American laws and precedents in our court cases isn’t American exceptionalism. It’s the same reason we don’t let Ohioans vote in Californian elections. Bad analogy. As I and another poster have pointed out, the use of decisions from other jurisdictions as persuasive authority is a feature of the common law world. I’m not aware that you can say the same about allowing non-residents to vote in elections. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/51 "2010-11-10T07:33:01Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > … As I and another poster have pointed out, the use of decisions from other jurisdictions as persuasive authority is a feature of the common law world. True enough, which leads into some comments I should have made earlier regarding– > [@Spoons](#): > > … In terms of private law, though, the sad fact, as you or other Americans may regard it, is that _stare decisis_ rules: like decides like, and one common-law country cannot insulate itself from the decisions of another. Ever watch Judge Judy, or Judge Joe Brown, or Judge Milian, or any of those reality court shows? Most of the cases brought before the Court on those shows are contractual in some way: a lease, a loan, a borrowed car, an agreement of some sort. The TV judge adjudicates the case according to long-standing principles of contract law. Similarly, with rarer cases involving, for example, the law of fixtures (a branch of property law), the judge uses old principles. Where did these principles come from? They are so common that it would be well-nigh impossible to cite a single case that gives rise to, for example, the _contra proferendum_ rule. But they exist in all common-law countries, and have been used in American law (and in British, Australian, Canadian, and other common-law jurisdictions’ law) for centuries; and I’d suggest that it would be ludicrous to be mandatory to cite American cases in such matters. Sure, it could be done, but when the foreign principle has been known and unnecessary to cite numerous times in American cases … why? ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/52 "2010-11-10T08:43:23Z")
Common law is a clear exception in the wording of the amendment, though. > [@](#): > > The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression. Choice of law issues still remain. Interestingly, when is it “necessary” to apply the law of another state, say, the state of New York? Does a choice of law clause make it necessary, or can the Court say “well, coulda been governed by Oklahoma law. We’re going to use that instead”. Removes a whole lot of certainty from some very carefully drafted agreements. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/53 "2010-11-10T09:14:59Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > Common law is a clear exception in the wording of the amendment, though. I don’t think so. If we edit the excerpt you cited, we arrive at: > [@](#): > > The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in … established common law… I would assume that “established common law” in the state of Oklahoma includes, but is not limited to, common-law principles passed down through the centuries from multiple common-law jurisdictions (US and foreign) and upheld by American courts. Still, the amendment as quoted seem pretty clear that Oklahoma wants no Sharia law in its courts. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/54 "2010-11-10T09:24:06Z")
I can’t see how this passes the Lemon Test. It will be stricken from the books before it is ever applied to one real life situation. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/55 "2010-11-10T09:52:51Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > Choice of law issues still remain. Interestingly, when is it “necessary” to apply the law of another state, say, the state of New York? When an Oklahoma driver is involved in a collision with a New York driver, in the state of New York. I am only guessing, but it seems to me that the jurisdiction where the collision took place (the _lex situs_) would be the location whose laws govern. Thus, even though the accident occurred in New York, if the Oklahoma driver launched an action in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma court would have to adjudicate it according to the laws (highway traffic act, common-law, etc.) of New York State. Note that I am only guessing–I honestly do not know what would happen in the US. I am basing my answer on what would happen here in Canada regarding torts (the _Tolofson_ Rule), and precedents may be different in the US. But it is a sensible and logical rule (torts are decided based on the law of the location where the tort occurred), so I would imagine it would be much the same in the US. I would welcome the comments of an American legal Doper on this question. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/56 "2010-11-10T10:27:58Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I can’t see how this passes the Lemon Test. It will be stricken from the books before it is ever applied to one real life situation. Not sure about this claim. Who would have standing? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/57 "2010-11-10T11:43:16Z")
Someone who set their will up to be adjudicated using sharia law, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/58 "2010-11-10T13:34:13Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Bad analogy. As I and another poster have pointed out, the use of decisions from other jurisdictions as persuasive authority is a feature of the common law world. I’m not aware that you can say the same about allowing non-residents to vote in elections. The USA isn’t a commonwealth country. If we wanted tot be, we would. We don’t, and aren’t. In fact, I think I recall there being a war fought over it. I’m not entirely sure though. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/59 "2010-11-10T18:52:30Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > The USA isn’t a commonwealth country. What does being in the commonwealth have to do with the discussion? It is true that the US has a large enough body of law that it doesn’t need to look to other countries’ precedents. But the same pretty much holds true for any common-law country: no Australian lawyer, for example, would use a Canadian precedent when an Australian one is available, as it would be in most cases. If an Australian lawyer tried to use a Canadian case to support his or her argument, he or she would be well-aware that the Canadian precedent is not binding on the Australian court at all, and could only be used to persuade the Australian court. It is this persuasiveness that is being discussed. And it is true that a number of Americans, both lawyers and laypeople, don’t think foreign law should be referred to at all when an American court makes a decision. However, while American courts rarely use foreign law, they have used it on occasion–as a fairly recent example, I’ll offer _Lawrence et al. v. Texas_, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ([cite](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102)), where the Supreme Court of the United States considers a foreign case, at p. 573: > [@](#): > > Of even more importance, almost five years before _Bowers_ was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to _Bowers_ and to today’s case. An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights. _Dudgeon v. United Kingdom_, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶ ;52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision is at odds with the premise in _Bowers_ that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization. Was _Dudgeon_ binding on the American court? No, of course not. But in the common-law tradition, being factually similar to the _Lawrence_ matter, it was considered by the American court, and it may have helped persuade the court to make the decision it did. Certainly, American decisions have been considered in Canadian law. For example, _R. v. Mann_, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 ([cite](http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc52/2004scc52.html)) mentions and considers _Terry v. Ohio_, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In this use of American precedents by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), you may be interested in “American Citations and the McLachlin Court: An Empirical Study,” by Peter McCormick ([PDF here](http://ohlj.ca/english/documents/0347_1_McCormick_PSS_090607.pdf)). As to how and why American cases can be used by the SCC, McCormick notes, at p. 108: > [@](#): > > The use of American citations by the Supreme Court [of Canada] is slightly skewed toward private cases, and strongly skewed away from public law cases. Given the strong similarities in the basic economic systems of the two countries, as well as their common grounding in English common law, it is not surprising that private law would be expected to lead. There are some areas of law—such as insurance law and intellectual property—in which there is considerable congruency between the two countries… It is the similarities, the “considerable congruency,” that allows common-law countries, the US included, to consider (but not be bound by) each other’s decisions. Like decides like, as I said upthread. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722/60 "2010-11-10T19:55:29Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > Interestingly, when is it “necessary” to apply the law of another state, say, the state of New York? Does a choice of law clause make it necessary, or can the Court say “well, coulda been governed by Oklahoma law. We’re going to use that instead”. > [@Spoons](#): > > When an Oklahoma driver is involved in a collision with a New York driver, in the state of New York. I am only guessing, but it seems to me that the jurisdiction where the collision took place (the _lex situs_) would be the location whose laws govern. Thus, even though the accident occurred in New York, if the Oklahoma driver launched an action in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma court would have to adjudicate it according to the laws (highway traffic act, common-law, etc.) of New York State. Throughout this thread, it has been pretty clear that the rules jeopardized by the recent Oklahoma amendment are those of contract law. I doubt that you will find a case of an Oklahoma driver contracting with a New York driver to have an accidental collision. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahomas-banning-of-international-law-and-its-relation-to-business/559722.md?page=4)