Neil Duxbury, London School of Economics, has posted The General Law Renaissance and the Common Law, which is forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review:
Of late, there has emerged an important body of legal scholarship sympathetically reassessing the concept of “general law” – unwritten legal norms discoverable by courts. This article shows that these reassessments run up against a problem when the general law in question is common law. The problem arises from a question: what makes common law valid as law in the first place? In England, the answer is that common-law norms are presumed to have governed since the beginning of English legal memory in 1189. That answer is strained, even in England. In the United States, it makes no sense. No American legal custom runs to 1189. The English validity test simply cannot be satisfied here.
This doesn’t pose a difficulty at state level, where statutory and other modes of reception supply an alternative, positivist foundation for the common law. The difficulty is federal. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins held that federal courts cannot discover a body of general law and use it to displace state law. General-law revivalists challenge Erie’s premises. This article argues that the challenge underestimates the difficulty. Absent federal-legislative or constitutional adoption, there can be no valid common law as a category of substantive general law, because the test that makes common law authoritative as customary law cannot be met on American soil.
Rather than discover common-law rules, federal courts, this article contends, do something significantly different: they extract underlying principles from the common-law tradition and fashion new rules from those principles. That is judicial lawmaking, but lawmaking from principle, not from nothing. Attentiveness to this distinction matters more than ever now that general law is back on the agenda.
--Dan Ernst
