— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.27.27 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 January 2011 I don't think there is a mistake.
The problem is that the phrase is used differently in some domestic legal systems from the standard usage in international law.
• In modern usage, the phrase appears almost always in passages stating what a court must not do: tribunals are routinely disallowed from declaring a non liquet.
Non liquet refers to when the applicable system of law does not provide an answer to the resolution of a legal claim.
If there is no existing common law, then the courts will look to typical things like history and tradition to try and fashion the appropriate legal standard.
Yet, U.S. courts have an independent duty to discern and apply the applicable law; so, I image they're still bound not to declare non liquet.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soonerthanlater2 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] Im my opinion, a loophole is the same as a lacuna in law or legal gap.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalexpert2 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] The following section as offering an example of non liquet must be rewritten (if not omitted).
That is to say, a court comes to the conclusion that the situation engaged in a case has no answer from the governing system of law.
But it has been argued by many that invoking of the non liquet doctrine is opposed to the notion of law being a complete (and autonomous) system.
[1] Note that municipal courts enforcing international law are not constrained to declare an area non liquet.