What Is Foreign Relations Law?
In: The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law (Curtis A. Bradley ed., 2018, Forthcoming)
94 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law (Curtis A. Bradley ed., 2018, Forthcoming)
SSRN
In: Duke Law Journal, Forthcoming
SSRN
Working paper
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 110, Heft 4, S. 625-627
ISSN: 2161-7953
The five essays in this Agora, written by Jack Goldsmith and myself, Ashley Deeks, Ryan Goodman, Rebecca Ingber, and Michael Ramsey, consider the legal legacy of the Obama administration concerning the use of military force, with respect to both domestic law and international law. Prominent developments during the Obama administration relating to war powers include the administration's defense in habeas litigation of its authority to detain members of Al Qaeda and associated groups in military custody; its increased use of targeted killing outside of active combat areas, in part through frequent missile attacks carried out by drones; its use of military force in 2011 against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, pursuant to a United Nations Security Council resolution; its deliberations in 2013 about the use of military force against Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; and its initiation of a long-term conflict against the Islamic State in 2014. This Agora touches on these and other developments and offers a range of perspectives.
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 110, Heft 1, S. 130-135
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2016-39
SSRN
Working paper
In: California Law Review, Vol. 104
SSRN
In: Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2015-31
SSRN
Working paper
In: Book chapter for CUSTOM'S FUTURE: INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A CHANGING WORLD (Curtis A. Bradley ed., Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: Harvard Law Review Forum, Vol. 128:294
SSRN
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 108, Heft 3, S. 486-496
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law, Band 108, Heft 3, S. 486-496
ISSN: 0002-9300
World Affairs Online
SSRN
Working paper
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 108, S. 145-147
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: Texas Law Review, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 106, Heft 3, S. 509-530
ISSN: 2161-7953
In debates over the scope of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), one historical document has played an especially prominent role. That document is a short opinion by U.S. Attorney General William Bradford, issued in the summer of 1795, concerning the involvement of U.S. citizens in an attack by a French fleet on a British colony in Sierra Leone. In the opinion, Bradford concluded that "[s]o far ... as the transactions complained of originated or took place in a foreign country, they are not within the cognizance of our courts; nor can the actors be legally prosecuted or punished for them by the United States." He also expressed the view that the actors could be prosecuted for crimes on the high seas, while noting that "some doubt rests on this point" in light of the language of the relevant criminal statute. Finally, he stated—in an obvious reference to the ATS—thatthere can be no doubt that the company or individuals who have been injured by these acts of hostility have a remedy by acivilsuit in the courts of the United States; jurisdiction being expressly given to these courts in all cases where an alien sues for a tort only, in violation of the laws of nations, or a treaty of the United States . . . .The Bradford opinion contains one of the few early historical references to the ATS, so it not surprisingly has received a lot of attention. Numerous academic articles, judicial opinions, and litigation briefs have invoked the Bradford opinion, for a variety of propositions. Reliance on the opinion has increased since the Supreme Court's 2004 decision inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain, in which the Court cited the opinion in support of the proposition that the ATS provides jurisdiction over certain common law causes of action derived from the law of nations. As an illustration of its perceived significance, both sides discussed the opinion in the oral argument before the Supreme Court in the first hearing in the pending ATS case,Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.