Suchergebnisse

Curtis Bradley / What is foreign relations law? -- Campbell McLachlan / Five conceptions of the function of foreign relations law -- Karen Knop / Foreign relations law : comparison as invention -- Tom Ginsburg / Comparative foreign relations law : a national constitutions perspective -- Oona A. Hathaway / A comparative foreign relations law agenda : opportunities and challenges -- Jenny S. Martinez / The constitutional allocation of executive and legislative power over foreign affairs : a survey --Alejandro Rodiles / Executive power in foreign affairs : the case for inventing a Mexican foreign relations law -- Pierre-Hugues Verdier & Mila Versteeg / Separation of powers, Treaty-making, and treaty withdrawal : a global survey -- Jean Galbraith / International agreements and U.S. foreign relations law : complexity in action -- Stefan Kadelbach / International treaties and the German Constitution -- Tadaatsu Mori / The current practice of making and applying international agreements in Japan -- Carlos Esposito / Spanish foreign relations law and the process for making treaties and other international agreements -- Jaemin Lee,/ Incorporation and implementation of treaties in South Korea -- Marise Cremona / Making treaties and other international agreements : the European Union -- Ernest A. Young / Foreign affairs federalism in the United States --Charles-Emmanuel Côté / Federalism and foreign affairs in Canada -- Roland Portmann / Foreign affairs federalism in Switzerland -- Anamika Asthana and Happymon Jacob / Federalism and foreign affairs in India -- Robert Schütze / Foreign affairs federalism in the European Union -- Laurence R. Helfer / Treaty exit and intra-branch conflict at the interface of international and domestic law -- Paul B. Stephan / Constitutionalism and internationalism : U.S. participation in international institutions -- Paul Craig / Engagement and disengagement with international institutions : the UK perspective -- Andreas L. Paulus & Jan-Henrik Hinselmann / International integration and its counter limits : a German constitutional perspective -- Hannah Woolaver / State engagement with treaties : interactions between international and domestic law -- Joris Larik / Regional organizations' relations with international institutions : the EU and ASEAN compared -- Duncan B. Hollis & Carlos M. Vázquez / Treaty self-execution as "foreign" relations law -- Shaheed Fatima / The domestic application of international law in British courts -- Gib Van Ert / The domestic application of international law in Canada -- Amichai Cohen / International law in Israeli courts -- Hiromichi Matsuda / International law in Japanese courts -- Congyan Cai / International law in Chinese courts -- Rene Urueña / Domestic application of international law in Latin America -- Ernest Yaw Ako and Richard Frimpong Oppong / Foreign relations law in the constitutions and courts of Commonwealth African countries -- Mario Mendez / The application of international law by the Court of Justice of the European Union -- David P. Stewart / International immunities in U.S. law -- Philippa Webb / International immunities in English law -- Hennie Strydom / South African law on immunities -- Andrea Bianchi / Jurisdictional immunities, constitutional values, and system closures -- William S. Dodge / International comity in comparative perspective -- Eirik Bjorge & Cameron Miles / Crown and foreign acts of state before British courts : Ramatullah, Belhaj, and the separation of powers -- Monica Hakimi / Techniques for regulating military force -- Curtis A. Bradley / U.S. war powers and the potential benefits of comparativism -- Katja S. Ziegler / The use of force by the United Kingdom : the evolution of accountability -- Anne Peters / Military operations abroad under the German basic law -- Mathias Forteau / Using military force and engaging in collective security : the case of France -- Tadashi Mori / Decisions in Japan to use military force or to participate in multinational peacekeeping operations

Comparative foreign relations law compares and contrasts how nations, and also supranational entities such as the European Union, structure their decisions about matters such as entering into and exiting from international agreements, engaging with international institutions, and using military force, as well as how they incorporate treaties and customary international law into their domestic legal systems. The book consists of forty-six chapters, written by leading authors from around the world. Some of the chapters are empirically focused, others are theoretical, and still others contain in-depth case studies.

This 46-chapter book, written by leading experts across the globe, compares and contrasts the foreign relations law of nations around the world, both documenting important differences and also noting commonalities and emerging trends. Comparative foreign relations law is a newly emerging field of study and teaching, and this volume is likely to become a key reference work as the field continues to develop.

Although customary international law has long been an important source of rights and obligations in international relations, there has been extensive debate in recent years about whether this body of law is equipped to address complex modern problems such as climate change, international terrorism, and global financial instability. In addition, there is growing uncertainty about how, precisely, international and domestic courts should identify rules of customary international law. Custom's Future seeks to address this uncertainty by providing a better understanding of how customary international law has developed over time, the way in which it is applied in practice, and the challenges that it faces going forward. Reflecting an interdisciplinary mix of historical, empirical, economic, philosophical, and doctrinal analysis, and containing chapters by leading international law experts, it will be of use to lawyers, judges, and researchers alike

Congress recently enacted significant reforms to the laws governing the reporting and publication of international agreements in the United States. These reforms were adopted in December 2022 and took effect in September 2023, and the State Department issued regulations implementing them in early October 2023.

AbstractThe text of the US Constitution appears to require that individual states, to the extent that they are ever allowed to conclude agreements with foreign governments, must obtain congressional approval. In practice, however, states conclude many agreements with foreign governments, including with Canada and its provinces, and they almost never seek congressional approval. This practice is an illustration of both the importance of federalism in US foreign relations and the significant role played by historical practice in informing US constitutional interpretation. The phenomenon of state international agreements assumed new prominence in 2019 when the Trump administration sued to challenge a climate change agreement that the state of California had made with Québec. Despite this challenge, for the most part, neither Congress nor the executive branch has resisted the growth in state international agreements. This acquiescence could change as countries like China target US states in an effort to work around strained relations with the US national government and as states become more assertive in resisting the national government's foreign policies. In any event, the practice of state international agreements unapproved by Congress rests in part on a distinction between binding and non-binding agreements that deserves greater scrutiny under both domestic and international law.

AbstractFor more than a decade, U.S. courts have struggled to develop a common law immunity regime to govern suits brought against foreign government officials, and they are now divided on a number of issues, including the extent to which they should defer to the executive branch and whether to recognize a jus cogens exception. This Editorial Comment considers a more conceptual division in the courts, between an "effect-of-judgment" approach that would confer immunity only when the judgment that the plaintiff is seeking would be directly enforceable against the foreign state, and a broader "nature-of-act" approach that would confer immunity whenever the plaintiff's case is challenging conduct carried out on behalf of the state. The Comment argues in favor of the nature-of-act approach and explains why analogies in this context to domestic civil rights litigation are misplaced.

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 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.