Palace Intrigue: Missiles, Treason, and the Rule of Law in Bolivia

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-356
Author(s):  
John M. Carey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
The Political ◽  
Full Disclosure ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The U.S

The Bolivian presidency is a precarious position, not only because so many presidents have left office under duress, but because former presidents are subject to legal jeopardy. The case of Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé illustrates the weakness of the rule of law in Bolivia and the political motivations that sustain it. Rodríguez was a respected Chief Justice of Bolivia's Supreme Court. He reluctantly assumed the presidency during a political crisis and shepherded the country through peaceful elections in 2005 that brought Evo Morales to the presidency. He was subsequently charged with treason in a case that involved the transfer from the Bolivian military to the United States of some obsolete surface-to-air missiles. The Rodríguez case was politically important enough to be useful for the Morales Government, but only briefly, and the moment passed. Now, the case's obscurity and the fecklessness of the Bolivian courts have left Rodríguez in legal and professional limbo. Full disclosure from the U.S. government regarding its involvement in the missiles case might clear Rodríguez's name.

Compromising Justice: Why the Bush Administration and the NGOs Are Both Wrong about the ICC

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. Rodman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Proceedings

The critics of the ICC in the Bush administration and its supporters within the human rights community have one thing in common: they assume that the ICC can evolve into a powerful institution independent of states, either to constrain American power or to act on a duty to prosecute to end impunity for perpetrators. Both overestimate the ability of the court to pursue a legalism divorced from power realities. The former attribute to the court powers it is unlikely to exercise, particularly if the United States remains outside the treaty. This is due, in part, to the safeguards within the Rome Statute, but more importantly, to the court's dependence on sovereign cooperation, which will lead it to place a high premium on cultivating the good will of the most powerful states. The latter overestimate the degree to which courts by themselves can deter atrocities. The ICC's effectiveness in any particular case will therefore be dependent on the political consensus of those actors capable of wielding power in that area. They also underestimate the need to compromise justice – at least, prosecutorial justice – in cases in which bargaining and compromise are the central means of facilitating transitions from armed conflict or dictatorship, and in cases in which the strength of the perpetrators and the limits of one's power would make legal proceedings either futile or counterproductive to other interests and values. Hence, decisions to prosecute must first be subjected to a test of political prudence, and then take place according to due process and the rule of law.

Judicial Deference in Foreign Relations

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Law

Disputes with foreign policy implications have often been brought to the federal courts. These cases call attention to the tension between the authority of the political branches to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and the authority of the courts to render judgments according to the law. How this tension is resolved, in turn, bears directly on the commitment of the United States to the rule of law.

scholarly journals Effects of the Core Functions of Government on the Diversity of Executive Agendas

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (8) ◽  
pp. 1001-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Jennings ◽  
Shaun Bevan ◽  
Arco Timmermans ◽  
Gerard Breeman ◽  
Sylvain Brouard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
The Political ◽  
Postwar Period ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Core ◽  
Core Issues

The distribution of attention across issues is of fundamental importance to the political agenda and outputs of government. This article presents an issue-based theory of the diversity of governing agendas where the core functions of government—defense, international affairs, the economy, government operations, and the rule of law—are prioritized ahead of all other issues. It undertakes comparative analysis of issue diversity of the executive agenda of several European countries and the United States over the postwar period. The results offer strong evidence of the limiting effect of core issues—the economy, government operations, defense, and international affairs—on agenda diversity. This suggests not only that some issues receive more attention than others but also that some issues are attended to only at times when the agenda is more diverse. When core functions of government are high on the agenda, executives pursue a less diverse agenda—focusing the majority of their attention on fewer issues. Some issues are more equal than others in executive agenda setting.

Questions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The U.S

We have investigated the differences in support for the U.S. Supreme Court among black, Hispanic, and white Americans, catalogued the variation in African Americans’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities, and examined how those latter two factors shape individuals’ support for the U.S. Supreme Court, that Court’s decisions, and for their local legal system. We take this opportunity to weave our findings together, taking stock of what we have learned from our analyses and what seem like fruitful paths for future research. In the process, we revisit Positivity Theory. We present a modified version of the theory that we hope will guide future inquiry on public support for courts, both in the United States and abroad.

Lawyers as Activists

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Dorf ◽  
Michael S. Chu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Social Change ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Action ◽  
The Government ◽  
Trump Administration

Lawyers played a key role in challenging the Trump administration’s Travel Ban on entry into the United States of nationals from various majority-Muslim nations. Responding to calls from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which were amplified by social media, lawyers responded to the Travel Ban’s chaotic rollout by providing assistance to foreign travelers at airports. Their efforts led to initial court victories, which in turn led the government to soften the Ban somewhat in two superseding executive actions. The lawyers’ work also contributed to the broader resistance to the Trump administration by dramatizing its bigotry, callousness, cruelty, and lawlessness. The efficacy of the lawyers’ resistance to the Travel Ban shows that, contrary to strong claims about the limits of court action, litigation can promote social change. General lessons about lawyer activism in ordinary times are difficult to draw, however, because of the extraordinary threat Trump poses to civil rights and the rule of law.

scholarly journals Immunizing the Flock: How the Pandemic Court Rewrote Religious Freedom

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Paul Baumgardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The U.S

When coronavirus began to descend upon the United States, religious freedom advocates across the country sounded the alarm that citizens’ religious practices and institutions were under threat. Although some of the most extreme arguments championed by these advocates were not validated by our legal system, many were. This article explores the underappreciated gains made by religious freedom advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past year. As a result of the “Pandemic Court”, religious freedom in the United States has been rewritten. This promises to radically change the educational, employment, and health prospects of millions of Americans for the rest of the pandemic and long afterwards.

Plus ça Change: The 1922 U.S. Congressional Debate on the Balfour Declaration

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-106
Author(s):  
Khaled Elgindy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Palestinian Arab ◽  
The U.S

This essay looks at the hearing held by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives in April 1922 on the subject of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as well as the broader congressional debate over the Balfour Declaration at that crucial time. The landmark hearing, which took place against the backdrop of growing unrest in Palestine and just prior to the League of Nations' formal approval of Britain's Mandate over Palestine, offers a glimpse into the cultural and political mindset underpinning U.S. support for the Zionist project at the time as well as the ways in which the political discourse in the United States has, or has not, changed since then. Despite the overwhelming support for the Zionist project in Congress, which unanimously endorsed Balfour in September 1922, the hearing examined all aspects of the issue and included a remarkably diverse array of viewpoints, including both anti-Zionist Jewish and Palestinian Arab voices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document