International Law and United States Law. By John M. Rogers. Aldershot, Brookfield VT: Ashgate, 1999. Pp. viii, 242. Index. $87.85, £50
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 93, Heft 3, S. 757-760
ISSN: 2161-7953
76 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 93, Heft 3, S. 757-760
ISSN: 2161-7953
In, Agora: Breard (collection of articles re: Breard v. Virgina, 513 U.S. 971 (1994).
BASE
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 89, S. 362-362
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2023-13
SSRN
In: Stanford Law Review, Forthcoming
SSRN
SSRN
In: Virginia Law Review, Band 106, Heft 1
SSRN
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: 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: University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Forthcoming
SSRN