Historical Gloss, Madisonian Liquidation, and the Originalism Debate
In: Virginia Law Review, Forthcoming
96 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Virginia Law Review, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: Georgetown Law Journal, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: New York University Law Review, Band 92, S. 689
SSRN
In: 2014 Supreme Court Review 1
SSRN
In: Duke Law Journal, Vol. 64
SSRN
In: American journal of international law, Band 104, Heft 1, S. 146-150
ISSN: 0002-9300
World Affairs Online
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 100, Heft 4, S. 882-888
ISSN: 2161-7953
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669.United States Supreme Court, June 28, 2006.In Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and that U.S. states may apply their regular procedural default rules to bar claims brought under Article 36. The Court reached the latter conclusion despite contrary reasoning by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention provides that when one party country arrests nationals of another party country, it shall inform the foreign nationals without delay that they have the right to have their consulate notified of the arrest, and to communicate with the consulate. Article 36(2) adds that these rights "shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended." The United States ratified the Vienna Convention in 1969, along with a protocol to the Convention providing that disputes between nations arising under the treaty could be heard in the ICJ.
A recent debate about the Bush administration's use of presidential signing statements has raised questions about their function, legality, and value. We argue that presidential signing statements are legal and that they provide a useful way for the president to disclose his views about the meaning and constitutionality of legislation. In addition, basic tenets of positive political theory suggest that signing statements do not undermine the separation of powers or the legislative process and that, under certain circumstances, they can provide relevant evidence of statutory meaning. Although President Bush has raised many more constitutional challenges within his signing statements than prior presidents have, at least on their face these challenges are similar to challenges made by other recent presidents, such as President Clinton. Whether Bush's views of executive power are significantly different from Clinton's, and if so, whether they are inferior, remain open questions, but these issues are independent of whether signing statements are lawful.
BASE
In: American journal of international law, Band 100, Heft 4, S. 911-917
ISSN: 0002-9300
In: University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: European journal of international law, Band 32, Heft 4, S. 1443-1454
ISSN: 1464-3596
Abstract
This short article responds to observations made by Alina Miron and Paolo Palchetti about the treaty sections of the Restatement of the Law (Fourth): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. We describe the nature of the Restatement process and explain why the choices made in the Restatement (Fourth) were more constrained than what might be suggested by Miron and Palchetti's critique. We also engage with some of their specific observations about the Restatement (Fourth)'s approach to treaties, resisting the suggestion that the approach marks a retreat from engagement with international law.
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 114, Heft 4, S. 571-577
ISSN: 2161-7953
AbstractThis introduction provides an overview of thirteen essays selected in response to a worldwide call for papers for an Agora on "The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic." The essays in the Agora consider some of the most pressing challenges, as well as potential opportunities, that COVID-19 is creating for the international legal order. The specific topics addressed include the role of international organizations such as the World Health Organization, state responsibility, human rights, financial regulation, and international trade. Contributors were invited to address the theme from a historical, institutional, doctrinal, normative, critical, or geopolitical perspective, or a mix of perspectives.
In: Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2020-46
SSRN
Working paper
In: AJIL Unbound, Band 111, S. 428-433
SSRN
In: Harvard Law Review, Vol. 131
SSRN