called “who owns” international law. Does de
termination of the system’s lawfulness depend upon US courts taking international law into interpretive account? Or does it shift “ownership” of the de
termination and interpretation to international bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council, special rapporteurs, tribunals of one kind or another, or NGOs, that have a completely different view of human rights obligations and which (in the sense of public choice analysis of the well-organized minority view as against the diffuse majority) are prepared to be relentlessly on-message in pressing theirs as...