Suchergebnisse

This Article analyzes the development of a common law for international tribunals through the interpretation of applicable treaties and the interpretation of customary law—a decidedly difficult and amorphous process. The author notes there has been significant development in the common law of the tribunals, but that there is still a long way to go, especially on the issue of when a court should simply interpret or apply exist-ing law and when it should "legislate" or create new law. The Article also examines the less formal rules and practices beyond formal judgments, the "soft" law and practices, which are indispensable to the continued ex-istence of international tribunals. This Article suggests "soft" law and practices may turn out to be more influential in the overall record of these courts than the jurisprudence.

Dr. Kauffman, friends. I am delighted to be back on my old stamping grounds at Yale Law School, which I attended some half-century ago in an era when World War II had been successfully completed and terrorism had not yet been defined as a global threat. The Nuremberg Tribunal was ongoing during part of my time at law school but I'm ashamed to say few of us paid much attention to it. We did not foresee any need to learn its lessons in our "brave new world." But as we are so often reminded, those who do not heed the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them, and evil has reappeared in new guises over the past 50 years, requiring new responses on an international level. So fast forwarding to the present, I have recently returned from two years service as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the Hague; this was after twenty years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Yugoslav Tribunal has been in existence for more than 9 years and I believe its history and accomplishments are a worthy subject for scrutiny, especially in light of the new International Criminal Court just getting off the ground. I am therefore pleased to share some observations on the Tribunal's successes and problems, and to offer some modest recommendations to future tribunals.

Ruminates on law's isolation from the other social sciences. The roots of this are traced in terms of the reluctance to employ social science data in the legal realm, particularly in US Supreme Court decision making. Impediments to spanning this gap are delineated, eg, social science data's practical inaccessibility & judges' tendency to avoid citing or reading research that lacks reasonably firm conclusions usable to support a legal ruling. There is a pervasive sense among judges that as long as they rely on their traditional acknowledged function of parsing case law or interpreting statutory or constitutional language, they are less vulnerable to reversal or criticism. Some downsides to a more inclusive attitude toward social science data are noted before reflecting on how to better bridge the judiciary-social science divide. 29 References. J. Zendejas

A significant portion of the work of the U.S. Courts of Appeals is reviewing decisions and rules of administrative agencies. These cases often require generalist judges to deal with highly technical and complex matters for which their backgrounds have not necessarily prepared them. Their difficulty in dealing with the cases is compounded not only by various requirements of the litigation process that frustrate complete judicial access to the facts of the case, but also by practices of the agencies and their attorneys. This article reviews various proposals to remedy these problems. It concludes that the advantages of an independent review by generalist judges outweigh any advantages of specialized courts or panels. It proposes, however, various procedural innovations that would hold the parties to a more responsible role in the process and promote more informed communication between the parties and the court.

The Department of Justice supports the main purpose of these bills, that is, expeditious exposure of, and effective opposition to, secret cartel arrangements supported by foreign governments that cause direct injury in U. S. commerce. The Department of Justice also welcomes support for accelerated efforts toward international resolution of restrictive anticompetitive business practices. However, the Department, for the reasons stated above, recommends against enactment of H.R. 13921 and H.R. 13922 in their present forms. We do believe the continued exploration and discussion of the need for enactment of a reporting requirement for foreign, governmentally-involved, cartels would be worthwhile. We have also noted the possible desirability of a Congressional resolution favoring negotiation of international antitrust rules. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.