The author first examines the international human rights norms most relevant to policy debates and police misconduct issues, followed by a discussion of the enforceability of these norms in the domestic legal system. There are two primary sources of international law relevant to police abuse issues in the United States: treaties and customary law. It has been only in the last decade that the United States has ratified the multilateral human rights treaties most relevant to police misconduct issues. These treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment. Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, these treaties are the "Law of the Land" and supreme over inconsistent State and local laws; however, it has been difficult to enforce this principle in practice. In addition to treaty norms, the United States is bound by international customary law, a form of international common law. This paper also discusses nonlitigation alternatives to enforcement of international human rights norms, noting that nonlitigation uses of international human rights norms are perhaps the most important area for U.S. civil rights advocates to pursue. If these international norms are to become effective tools, they must be accepted and used more widely in the U.S. political and legal culture. It is not easy to use international human rights mandates as effective tools in police abuse litigation or advocacy when international norms clash with U.S. legal doctrine. More importantly, an ambivalent attitude toward international law and initiatives in U.S. society continues to hamper enforcement efforts. Yet advocates can overcome these obstacles by a combination of effective organizing, education, and outreach efforts. 68 notes