Talk:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Ex injuria non oritur

Ian Lacey (ISBN 0 646 04964 X) say that this principle operates in international law "to the effect that no legal claim to territory can arise of an illegal aggression.

Julius Stone use the above Latin phrase for effectively the same sense.

This eminent judge of the International Court of Justice is a relevant authority on this subject.

Is this article not at all relevant to theLaw of nations?

User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 06:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How many years did this case last? Is this date correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshe-paz (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer in part to your question, it was recently over-ruled...

It seems the court completely reconsiderd the whole doctrine from the ground up, providing a whole new set of principles. These changes were sufficiently important to have whole books written about this one decision - for example: https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/illegality-after-patel-v-mirza-9781509912773/