Suchergebnisse

This book grows out of the work of a study group convened by the American Branch of the International Law Association. The group had a mandate to examine threats to the rules-based international order and possible responses. The several chapters in the book-all of which are written by distinguished international law scholars—generally support the conclusion that the rules-based international order confronts significant challenges, but it is not unraveling—at least, not yet. Climate change is the biggest wild card in trying to predict the future. If the world's major powers—especially the United States and China—cooperate with each other to combat climate change, then other threats to the rules-based order should be manageable. If the world's major powers fail to address the climate crisis by 2040 or 2050, the other threats addressed in this volume may come to be seen as trivial in comparison. The book consists of fourteen chapters, plus an introduction. Three chapters address specific threats to the rules-based international order: climate change, autonomous weapons, and cyber weapons. Eight chapters address particular substantive areas of international law: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, trade law, investment law, anti-bribery law, human rights law, international criminal law, and migration law. The remaining chapters provide a range of perspectives on the past evolution and likely future development of the rules-based international order as a whole.

Information warfare and democratic decay -- Russian information warfare and U.S. elections -- Russian influence operations in Europe -- China's global information operations -- An uneven playing field -- A proposal for transnational regulation -- Policy analysis : weighing costs and benefits -- The First Amendment.

Examines how the rules-based international order is threatened by challenges such as climate change, autonomous weapons, and cyber weapons. It discusses how the international order can confront these threats, and proposes future developments of the rules-based international order as a whole.

Traditionally, the Constitution's treaty supremacy rule provided that all treaties supersede conflicting state laws. The rule was designed to prevent treaty violations by state governments. From the Founding until World War II, treaty supremacy and self-execution were independent doctrines. Treaty supremacy was an aspect of federal supremacy; it governed the relationship between treaties and state law. Self-execution governed the division of power over treaty implementation between Congress and the president. In 1945, the United States ratified the U.N. Charter, which obligates nations to promote 'human rights - for all without distinction as to race.' In 1950, a California court applied the Charter's human rights provisions and the traditional treaty supremacy rule to invalidate a state law that discriminated against Japanese nationals

Traditionally, the Constitution's treaty supremacy rule provided that all treaties supersede conflicting state laws. The rule was designed to prevent treaty violations by state governments. From the Founding until World War II, treaty supremacy and self-execution were independent doctrines. Treaty supremacy was an aspect of federal supremacy; it governed the relationship between treaties and state law. Self-execution governed the division of power over treaty implementation between Congress and the president. In 1945, the United States ratified the U.N. Charter, which obligates nations to promote 'human rights - for all without distinction as to race.' In 1950, a California court applied the Charter's human rights provisions and the traditional treaty supremacy rule to invalidate a state law that discriminated against Japanese nationals

The doctrine of Ex parte Young is typically described as an exception to the immunity granted by the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This Article contends that the Young doctrine also stands for the proposition that the Supremacy Clause creates an implied right of action for injunctive relief against state and local government officers who violate federal statutes or treaties. That right of action is available to plaintiffs who seek to enforce federal statutes or treaties against government officers unless Congress foreclosed the availability of a Young remedy when it enacted the statute, or the treaty makers foreclosed the availability of a Young remedy when they adopted the treaty. A Young remedy is therefore available to plaintiffs who raise treaty-based human rights claims against state or local government officers, because the treaty makers did not foreclose the availability of a Young remedy when they ratified human rights treaties.