Reporter: Curtis Arthur Bradley
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 89, S. 362-362
ISSN: 2169-1118
44 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 89, S. 362-362
ISSN: 2169-1118
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.
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: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 110, Heft 4, S. 628-645
ISSN: 2161-7953
In the fifteen years since the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was enacted on September 18, 2001, the Taliban has been removed from power but not eliminated; Osama Bin Laden has been killed and the senior leaders of Al Qaeda as of 9/11 have been captured, killed, or driven underground, although Al Qaeda remains a threat; numerous Al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up around the globe, most notably in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia; and most ominously, the Islamic State has arisen from the ashes of Al Qaeda in Iraq to become what the Director of National Intelligence has described as "the preeminent terrorist threat" against the United States "because of its self-described caliphate in Syria and Iraq, its branches and emerging branches in other countries, and its increasing ability to direct and inspire attacks against a wide range of targets around the world."Despite massive changes in the geographical scope of the conflict that began on 9/11, the strategy and tactics employed, and the identity of the enemy, the AUMF remains the principal legal foundation under U.S. domestic law for the president to use force against and detain members of terrorist organizations. The AUMF is already the longest operative congressional authorization of military force in U.S. history, and, as of fall 2016, there was no immediate prospect that Congress would move to repeal or update it. With the continued vibrancy of Al Qaeda, its associates, and the Taliban, and with the 2014 presidential extension of the AUMF to cover military operations against the Islamic State, the AUMF is likely to be the primary legal basis for American uses of force for the foreseeable future.
In: American journal of international law, Band 110, Heft 4, S. 628-645
ISSN: 0002-9300
World Affairs Online
In: Foreign affairs: an American quarterly review, Band 80, Heft 2, S. 188
ISSN: 2327-7793
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 92, Heft 4, S. 675-679
ISSN: 2161-7953
The international law community has heavily criticized the United States' handling of the Breard case. These criticisms are understandable. Perhaps because of the rush of time, the explanations by the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court for failing to stop Breard's execution brushed over important issues of domestic and international law. In addition, Virginia's decision to proceed with the execution, and the federal Government's decision not to block it, may have reflected insufficient respect for international law and institutions. These decisions may also adversely affect U.S. relations with other nations and weaken consular protection of U.S. citizens abroad. These criticisms, however, tell only part of the story. In particular, they do not consider countervailing considerations grounded in the Constitution's allocation of authority between the federal and state governments.
In: Environmental management: an international journal for decision makers, scientists, and environmental auditors, Band 63, Heft 3, S. 416-432
ISSN: 1432-1009
In: Aspen casebook series
Historical and conceptual foundations -- Courts and foreign relations -- Congress and the president in foreign relations -- States and foreign relations -- Treaties -- Executive agreements -- Customary international law -- International crime -- War powers -- Terrorism.
In: University casebook series
"This casebook provides ... coverage of federal courts and the law of federal-state relations. The authors have completely reorganized the chapter on the law of habeas corpus (chapter VII) to take account of recent developments in the field and to provide more manageable coverage of this difficult subject. Additionally, important new decisions are noted throughout. The 9th edition is up-to-date through December 2017"--
In: American journal of international law, Band 102, Heft 3, S. 529-572
ISSN: 0002-9300
World Affairs Online