Professor Roger Alford has posted at Opino Juris about an issue that I have never given any thought to. Alford examines a Tenth Circuit opinion rejecting the argument that statutory rape is a crime under international law. Here are portions of Alford's post:
Carmen Cisneros and Michael Aragon were married in 1987, when Cisneros was 15 and Aragon was 19. They were married for 13 years. Following their divorce, Cisneros (a Mexican national) filed suit against Aragon for statutory rape. But rather than rely simply on domestic law, Cisneros includes a claim for a violation of international law under the Alien Tort Statute. The question thus presented in Cisneros v. Aragon is whether statutory rape can constitute a violation of international law.
Not surprisingly, the Tenth Circuit held that it could not....
At one level this makes perfect sense to me. I have not seen other case law or commentary indicating that statutory rape of this type violates international law. (This is in sharp contrast with systematic rape as a weapon of war, which is an international law violation.)
But at another level I find the decision puzzling. Especially important is the reference in Cisneros, quoting Sosa, that a domestic crime cannot be an international law violation unless it has serious consequences for international affairs....
In short, how does one put legal parameters on the requirement that a crime must impact international affairs for it to constitute an international law violation?
I can't begin to answer the questions that Alford has posed. But I found the whole issue and post very interesting. So, if you have an interest in sexual violence criminal law in the international arena, I would recommend checking out the whole post.
Recent Comments