Search results

How should courts handle cases that implicate foreign relations or national security? What weight should courts give to the executive branch's view of the law in these matters? To date, one can identify in the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court no less than four theoretical approaches—varying by the degree of judicial deference due to the executive—that suggest competing visions about the constitutional role of courts in these areas. Each approach has been criticized fiercely for either abdicating the constitutional duty of the courts or obstructing the nation's pursuit of its security and foreign policy objectives. Absent a clear principle guiding when to apply each approach, courts invoke these approaches intermittently, generating considerable confusion. Current doctrine is missing a framework for mediating tensions between the four approaches. This Article seeks to fill that gap. It draws from the Margin of Appreciation (MoA), a doctrine international courts, especially in Europe, use widely to calibrate the level of deference owed to the principal decision-maker in separation of powers and human rights issues. Compared to parallel doctrines courts traditionally apply, the MoA offers a sophisticated framework for addressing deference claims by the executive. The doctrine provides courts criteria for optimizing the mode of their review, disciplines judicial decision-making, and reduces costs of judicial errors in matters of national importance. This Article reconstructs the MoA as a domestic law doctrine. It makes the necessary adaptations for "domesticating" the MoA and develops criteria for considering deference claims in a variety of foreign affairs and national security matters. In doing so, this Article demonstrates how a domestic MoA approach can generate more nuanced judicial engagement with foreign affairs, encourage deliberative decision-making by policymakers, and promote interbranch dialogue about the role of legal institutions in the high-stakes areas of foreign affairs and national security.

Longstanding debates over the allocation of foreign affairs power between Congress and the President have reached a stalemate. Wherever the formal line between Congress and the President's powers is drawn, it is well established that, as a functional matter, even in times of great discord between the two branches, the President wields immense power when he acts in the name of foreign policy or national security. And yet, while scholarship focuses on the accretion of power in the presidency, presidential primacy is not the end of the story. The fact that the President usually "wins" in foreign affairs does not mean that the position the President ultimately chooses to take is preordained. Questions of foreign policy and national security engage diverse components of the executive branch bureaucracy, which have overlapping jurisdictions and often conflicting biases and priorities. And yet they must arrive at one executive branch position. Thus the process of decision making, the weight accorded the position of any given decision maker, and the context in which the decision is made together shape the ultimate position the President takes. This Article explores and critiques the foreign policy role Congress can—and does—play in structuring and rearranging the relative powers of those internal actors and the processes they take to reach their decisions, in order to influence and even direct the President's ultimate position. Having yielded much of the ground on substance, Congress has an opportunity for a second bite at the apple, and may influence the policy directions of the presidency by manipulating its internal workings. There are risks to deploying "process controls," as I term these measures, in lieu of direct substantive engagement, but I argue that Congress can and should use these tools more instrumentally to influence the course of foreign policy in areas where it is otherwise unlikely to assert itself as a coequal branch and necessary check on presidential power.

In April 2010, the Arizona legislature enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Commonly known as SB 1070, the law created a slate of new criminal offenses and arrest powers covering aliens within Arizona's borders. SB 1070 proved divisive. It inspired copycat legislation in several states, provoked sharp criticism from the legal academy, and-most relevant here- catalyzed a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice seeking a preliminary injunction against the state law on the ground that it was preempted by federal law. Initially, the federal government's litigation prospects seemed dim. One term before SB 1070 reached the Supreme Court, the Justices had upheld an earlier Arizona effort to tamp down on undocumented aliens in the workplace. Doing so, the Court had limned a narrow reach for the preemptive penumbra of federal immigration law. In the SB 1070 oral argument, the Solicitor General seemed to fare poorly, with Justice Sotomayor even suggesting that his central preemption argument was not "selling very well" and that he try "to come up with something else." Yet in June 2012, the Court handed down an opinion giving the federal government "close" to everything it had sought. By a vote of five Justices to three, the Court invalidated three of the four challenged provisions and upheld the fourth subject only on condition that the state satisfied demanding limiting qualifications. What many expected to be a rout in favor of Arizona's position ended instead in a robust affirmation of national authority.

George Yeo, former Minister of Foreign Affairs who became a business leader, speaks to DNA about his philosophical Taoist worldview, the impact of the rise of China, and the challenges facing ASEAN at its 50th year. He talks on how the soft power of ASEAN's policy of non-interference has yield some successes.

Former Philippines Secretary of Foreign Affairs and a respected champion on women's issues, Delia Albert, tells of how she got her big break entering the foreign services, and set a precedent for gender equality. She also presents the Asian style of leadership, ASEAN way of mitigating conflicts, and describes a highly stressful case of saving a Filipino man in Iraq.

This paper analyzes the readiness of the West Sumatra provincial government in establishing foreign affairs. This study identified perceptions and implementation of foreign affairs conducted by the regional government of West Sumatra province. Furthermore, this Research is expected to map the challenges, opportunities, and obstacles faced by the regions in formulating foreign affairs. This Research uses a qualitative approach in processing and analyzing data collected through interviews with stakeholders in the government level of West Sumatra province and collection of policy documents on West Sumatra provincial government related to foreign affairs. The results show that the West Sumatra provincial government is not fully prepared to carryout foreign affairs. The regional government of the province of West Sumatra continues to improve it self to prepare its institutions to establish and run foreign affairs. Then, the government aware that local government has support central government in doping foreign affairs. It has various obstacles for the implementation of foreign affairs such as human resources, mechanisms, and limitations of local government initiatives to follow kupon foreign Cooperation carried out by the central government.

This special section seeks to extent our knowledge on teaching innovative methods in European Union (EU) Foreign Affairs in time of challenges, politicisation, and digitalisation. It shares the experience of established and early career colleagues on how they designed, implemented, and applied specific innovations in their teaching. The section focuses on these experiences and aims to provide guidance on how specific ideas were put into practice in a hand-on and reflective manner. It seeks to tip into what works and why and how we as educators deal with challenges. Contributions engage with teaching EU foreign policy via Problem-based learning (Tonra 2020), research-led teaching by linking policy briefs and employability (Lightfoot 2020), responsive teaching in times of radical change (O´Mahony 2020), and synchronous teaching among 13 universities (Plank and Niemann 2020). They offer insights into increasing the ownership of students, raise awareness of their subjectivity, stimulate critical thinking, or enhance student´s media skills as well as to foster their employability. All contributions showcase the added value of the applied innovations, but also discuss obstacles that need to be considered in the conceptualisation and implementation of the proposed active approaches.

India is an emerging power. Its economic clout has increased substantially and on a more or less even pace since the late 1990s, partly as the consequence of this economic growth and partly as a prerequisite for it, India is an 'emerging power'. Its economic clout has increased substantially and on a more or less even pace since the late 1990s. Partly as a the country has acquired a higher international profile and ambition. The claim to a permanent seat at the UN Security Council and the increased military capability, both in air and at sea are but two expressions of this new thinking. However, in spite of these expressions and the advantages of a concerted effort, India lacks a clear international agenda and strategy for her international ambitions.1 For instance, in certain areas New Delhi pursues a policy of support for the furtherance of democracy in the world. In other areas, New Delhi pursues a policy that effectively undermines these endeavours, as in its close collaboration with the undemocratic regimes of Sudan and Iran. Another example is the contradiction between India's interest in close collaboration with its neighbours on the one hand, and its inability to pursue this in practice. Bangladesh is a case in point, which will be discussed later. This chapter will argue that the lack of a coherent agenda and strategy is caused by processes of change in the practice of two interlocked yet separate constitutional provisions, namely, the division of power between the central government and the states, i.e. India's federal structure, and its democratic setup. Thus, it counters and adds to explanations emphasizing causes such as the Hindu view of life, a lack of 'instinct to power', and continued support of non-alignment in international affairs.2 The chapter will further argue that this political dynamic renders the prospects of a coherent agenda even less likely in the future as Indian states increasingly engage in foreign policy and, consequently, would actively contribute to the differentiation of India's external affairs. ; publishedVersion

This thematic issue shows how the interplays of secrecy and transparency have been a salient driver of institutional politics in EU foreign affairs. It offers a critical reading of the most recent developments in EU's international negotiations, an analysis of case law and empirical insights on public and institutional access to information. The Issue provides an interdisciplinary understanding of how information flows affect and are affect by the EU's institutional balance through synergising perspectives from the fields of political science, public administration and law. This editorial outlines the central questions raised in this thematic issue and highlights its main findings.

This Article spotlights some of the idiosyncratic features of admiralty law at the time of the founding. These features pose challenges for applying the original understanding of the Constitution to contemporary questions of foreign relations. Federal admiralty courts were unusual creatures by Article III standards. They sat as international tribunals applying international and foreign law, freely hearing cases that implicated sensitive questions of foreign policy, and liberally exercising universal jurisdiction over disputes solely between foreigners. However, these powers did not arise out of the basic features of Article III, but rather from a felt need to opt into the preexisting system of admiralty. Seen in this historic light, admiralty, especially in the early years of the Republic, was an anomalous island of internationalism within the constitutional system. Thus to the extent that the history of foreign relations law is intertwined with admiralty, the lessons of this history cannot be simply transposed to modern foreign relations jurisprudence. This could have potentially significant implications, given that a list of canonical nineteenth century foreign relations cases reads like a port registry: The Schooner Exchange, Charming Betsy, La Jeune Eugenie, The Antelope, and The Paquete Habana. This Article is part of the symposium at the Saint Louis University School of Law on "The Use and Misuse of History in Foreign Relations Law," and comments on Prof. Ingrid Wuerth's An Originalism for Foreign Affairs? Prof. Wuerth questions the applicability of originalism. This Article argues that the originalist method of constitutional interpretation applies to foreign affairs questions, and not just to matters of individual rights. However, as the admiralty example developed here shows, Prof. Wuerth is correct that foreign affairs originalism requires a great sensitivity to historical context. Ideas developed within a particular legal framework may not apply when that framework no longer exists.

The propriety of a new breed of state laws interfering in immigration enforcement is pending before the Supreme Court and the lower courts. These laws typically incorporate federal standards related to the criminalization of immigration ("crimmigration'), but diverge aggressively from federal enforcement policy. Enacting states argue that the legislation is merely a species of "cooperative federalism" that does not trespass upon the federal power over foreign affairs, foreign commerce, and nationality rules since the laws mirror federal standards. This Article challenges the formalist mirror theory assumptions behind the new laws and argues that inconsistent state crimmigration enforcement policy and resulting foreign affairs complications render the new spate of immigration policing laws infirm. [para] The Article argues for the need to give due weight to statements of interest by the executive on the foreign affairs implications of rebellious state crimmigration enforcement. The Article argues that the caste-carving approach of the "attrition through enforcement" multi-front attack strategy behind the laws contravenes national immigration enforcement policy and strains foreign relations. The analysis provides a basis for distinguishing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting [131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011)], which upheld a state employer licensing regulation, from the current spate of legislation pending in the courts. The distinction that makes a difference is conflict with a national enforcement policy calibrated to avoid turning suspected foreign nationals into untouchable caste-like "subjects of suspicion and abuse," thereby marring community and international relations. The analysis in the crimmigration context also enriches our understanding of what cooperative-and uncooperative-federalism enforcement means and the dangers of the phenomenon in areas of special national concern fraught with localized animosity. [para] Note: This article was reprinted in 33 Immigr. & Nat'lity L. ...

This thematic issue shows how the interplays of secrecy and transparency have been a salient driver of institutional politics in EU foreign affairs. It offers a critical reading of the most recent developments in EU's international negotiations, an analysis of case law and empirical insights on public and institutional access to information. The Issue provides an interdisciplinary understanding of how information flows affect and are affect by the EU's institutional balance through synergising perspectives from the fields of political science, public administration and law. This editorial outlines the central questions raised in this thematic issue and highlights its main findings.

Modern diplomacy is currently experiencing fundamental changes at an unprecedented rate, which affect the very character of diplomacy as we know it. These changes also affect aspects of domestic and international politics that were once of no great concern to diplomacy. Technical developments, mainly digitization, affect how the work of the diplomat is understood; the number of domestic and international actors whose activity implicates (or is a form of) diplomacy is increasing; the public is more sensitive to foreign policy issues and seeks to influence diplomacy through social media and other platforms; the way exchange between states, as well as the interchange between government and other domestic actors, progresses is influencing diplomacy's ability to act legitimately and effectively; and finally, diplomats themselves do not necessarily need the same attributes as they previously did. These trends, reflecting general societal developments, need to be absorbed by diplomacy as part of state governance.

Brazil is playing an increasingly important role globally and thus getting attention from a wide set of observers and practitioners - from academics and policy makers to businesses. Nevertheless, its foreign policy continues to be pursued and implemented in a much insulated fashion, almost entirely through the hands of the executive branch - the president and a set of ministries and agencies, where interests make themselves apparent -, without much participation of the Brazilian Congress. It is considered to be a remarkable case of abdication of power (Lima and Santos, 1998). But is it real abdication, or a case of delegation of powers? Here, I argue in favour of the latter case, siding with those that see Congress as more than pure spectator (Maia and Cesar, 2004; Neves, 2003; Diniz and Ribeiro, 2008; Diniz, 2009).

The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs is working to create a more knowledge-oriented organizational culture. But at the same time it is losing its internal capacity for strategic thinking, a crucial attribute in an era of globalization, integrated policy and the politicization of development cooperation