Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Sarah H Cleveland ◽  
Paul B. Stephan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Third ◽  
History Of

This introductory chapter serves as a foreword for the volume. It sketches the history of past restatements and the evolution of the latest one. The first (confusingly called Second) Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States brought widespread attention to the term “foreign relations law.” It staunchly defended the proposition that foreign relations, no matter how imbued with discretion and prerogative, still must rest on law. The Third Restatement, prepared during a period of what to many seemed constitutional retrenchment and a loosening of judicial supervision over public life, offered a robust defense of the proposition that, “In conducting the foreign relations of the United States, Presidents, members of Congress, and public officials are not at large in a political process; they are under law.” Moreover, it insisted that the judiciary, as much as the executive and Congress, creates and enforces this law. To the extent that the Third Restatement rested its claims on its view of the state of customary international law, other influential actors pushed back. The Fourth Restatement revisits the Third’s claims, especially about the central role of the judiciary, in light of the evolution of both U.S. and international law and practice.

Customary International Law and U.S. Judicial Power

2020 ◽  
pp. 251-264
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Third

This chapter describes specific points of divergence between the Third and Fourth Restatements of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States regarding how U.S. courts should engage with customary international law. The Third Restatement, adopted in 1987, envisioned U.S. courts fluent in and engaged with international law, deploying a U.S. foreign relations jurisprudence in dialogue with international law and lawyers. Customary international law was a central feature of this vision because it was the prime pathway for human rights litigation in federal courts when U.S. treaty-based human-rights initiatives had stalled. Appearing thirty years later, the Fourth Restatement exhibits a fundamentally different orientation toward customary international law. Customary international law is no longer embraced as it was in the Third Restatement as an opportunity to play offense, to advance the international law of human rights. That vision inspired a reaction among some U.S. legal scholars who questioned the U.S. federal law status of customary international law and the legitimacy of U.S. judges advancing the customary international law of human rights. The Fourth Restatement seeks a middle ground by defending against this revision of customary international law’s status role in the United States, concerned that the revisionist view might encourage and provide cover for U.S. courts to dismiss cases and claims with foreign policy ramifications that they should be adjudicating. The approaches of the two Restatements, taken together, have contributed to the disengagement of U.S. judges from customary international law altogether, to the detriment of U.S. conduct of foreign policy and contrary to the original constitutional specification of the judicial power of the United States as reflected in Article III, the Judiciary Act of 1789 that established the federal courts, and early historical practice.

Application of Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution in international context—fear of foreign prosecution as ground for invoking privilege against self-incrimination—relevance of growing international law enforcement cooperation—role of U.S. judiciary in foreign relations

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-764
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Diane Marie Amann
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Context ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Domestic Law

United States v. Balsys. 118 S.Ct. 2218.U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1998.Resolving a long-open question, the U.S. Supreme Court held in this 7-2 decision that a witness in a domestic proceeding may not invoke the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination if the witness fears that the testimony may be used in a prosecution outside the United States. Although grounded in domestic law, the three opinions in Balsys reveal tension between the judiciary's traditional deference to the political branches in foreign relations matters and its concern over the risk that individuals subject to prosecution abroad will suffer deprivation of liberty because of that deference.

Comparative International Law, Foreign Relations Law, and Fragmentation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul B. Stephan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Third ◽  
Ways Of Thinking ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
British Commonwealth ◽  
Distinct Field

This chapter considers the rise of foreign relations law as a way of thinking about the legal dimensions of international relations. It connects this development to the emergence of comparative international law and anxieties about fragmentation in international law. Each of these fields challenges conventional ways of thinking about international law and thus seems to bolster those who would dismiss international law as irrelevant or ineffectual. The chapter proceeds in three sections. The first describes contemporary foreign relations law as a distinct field that emerged in the United States in the late 1990s and developed independently in parts of the British Commonwealth and Europe. It traces the parallels with and differences between foreign relations law and comparative international law. The second section considers the possibility these complementary trends, as well as concerns about fragmentation, pose a threat to international law as conventionally conceived. The third section responds to these concerns.

Foreign Missions and Strategy, Foreign Missions as Strategy

2021 ◽  
pp. 311-328
Author(s):  
Emily Conroy-Krutz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Missions ◽  
General Process ◽  
Location Selection ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Role Of Religion

This chapter describes how thinking about American foreign missions provides an essential reminder of the sometimes hidden or overlooked role of religion in the history of foreign relations and policy. Accordingly, attention to foreign missions reveals the multiple ways that religious belief and priorities could shape political strategies. In foreign missionaries, one can see a group of early nineteenth-century Americans who had a grand plan for the role of the United States in the world. The United States was, in their view, one of the two seats of “true religion” in the world and accordingly it had a duty to lead the rest of the world toward a particular type of Christianity and “civilization.” This can be seen in the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions’ (ABCFM) general process of location selection as well as their early efforts in China, which they saw as a key strategic location in the overall project of the conversion of the world. Similar dynamics were at work in all of the board’s mission stations, but the particular interest that missionaries, merchants, and diplomats had in relations with China make it a particularly apt location for considering missionary and grand strategy.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus Ramirez-Valles
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
United States ◽  
Skin Color ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The United States ◽  
Aids Epidemic ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of

This introductory chapter discusses the importance of studying the role of Latino GBT activists in the AIDS movement in the United States. Scholars and the general media have overlooked the work and the voices of Latino GBTs in the AIDS movement, creating a void in the history of the AIDS movement, the social sciences, and public health in the United States. This is troubling because ethnic and sexual minorities are currently more affected by the epidemic than their white counterparts, and because the larger Latino population in the United States is less supportive of civil liberties for homosexuals than for whites and African Americans. Indeed, the absence of Latino GBTs' voices hinders one's understanding of how a group already marginalized because of their ethnicity and skin color confronts adversity, such as the AIDS epidemic.

The Setting

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolette D. Manglos-Weber
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Trust ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evangelical Christianity ◽  
Interracial Relations ◽  
Personal Trust ◽  
Conceptual Background ◽  
History Of ◽  
Role Of Religion

This chapter presents the historical and conceptual background to the book’s argument. It starts with a history of Ghana, followed by an analysis of the trends that have led to high levels of out-migration, and then to a description of Ghanaian populations in Chicago. Next, it addresses the concept of social trust in general and personal trust in particular, developing a theory of personal trust as an imaginative and symbolic activity, and analyzing interracial relations through the lens of racialized distrust. It concludes by describing the role of religion in the integration of immigrant groups into the United States and the particular religious frameworks that characterize Charismatic Evangelical Christianity in Ghana.

Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Karen Knop
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The U.S

The two starting points for this chapter are that fields of law are inventions, and that fields matter as analytical frames. All legal systems deal with foreign relations issues, but few have a field of “foreign relations law.” As the best-stocked cabinet of issues and ideas, U.S. foreign relations law would be likely to generate the field elsewhere in the process of comparison. But some scholars, particularly outside the United States, see the nationalist or sovereigntist strains of the U.S. field, and perhaps even just its use as a template, as demoting international law. The chapter begins by asking whether this apprehension can be alleviated by using international law or an existing comparative law field to inventory the foreign relations issues to be compared. Finding neither sufficient, it turns to the U.S. field as an initial frame and sketches three types of anxieties that the U.S. experience has raised or might raise for international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting how Campbell McLachlan’s allocative conception of foreign relations law might be adapted so as to turn such anxieties about international law into opportunities.

scholarly journals How do Public Officials Learn About Policy? A Field Experiment on Policy Diffusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Miguel M. Pereira
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Policy Diffusion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Learning Context ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Non Profit

Abstract Prior research suggests that partisanship can influence how legislators learn from each other. However, same-party governments are also more likely to share similar issues, ideological preferences and constituency demands. Establishing a causal link between partisanship and policy learning is difficult. In collaboration with a non-profit organization, this study isolates the role of partisanship in a real policy learning context. As part of a campaign promoting a new policy among local representatives in the United States, the study randomized whether the initiative was endorsed by co-partisans, out-partisans or both parties. The results show that representatives are systematically more interested in the same policy when it is endorsed by co-partisans. Bipartisan initiatives also attract less interest than co-partisan policies, and no more interest than out-partisan policies, even in more competitive districts. Together, the results suggest that ideological considerations cannot fully explain partisan-based learning. The study contributes to scholarship on policy diffusion, legislative signaling and interest group access.

Univision, Telemundo, and the Rise of Spanish-Language Television in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Allen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mass Communication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spanish Language ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
History Of ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
American Society ◽  
The U.S

The first completely researched history of U.S. Spanish-language television traces the rise of two foremost, if widely unrecognized, modern American enterprises—the Spanish-language networks Univision and Telemundo. It is a standard scholarly history constructed from archives, original interviews, reportage, and other public materials. Occasioned by the public’s wakening to a “Latinization” of the U.S., the book demonstrates that the emergence of Spanish-language television as a force in mass communication is essential to understanding the increasing role of Latinos and Latino affairs in modern American society. It argues that a combination of foreign and domestic entrepreneurs and innovators who overcame large odds resolves a significant and timely question: In an English-speaking country, how could a Spanish-speaking institution have emerged? Through exploration of significant and colorful pioneers, continuing conflicts and setbacks, landmark strides, and ongoing controversies—and with revelations that include regulatory indecision, behind-the-scenes tug-of-war, and the internationalization of U.S. mass media—the rise of a Spanish-language institution in the English-speaking U.S. is explained. Nine chapters that begin with Spanish-language television’s inception in 1961 and end 2012 chronologically narrate the endeavor’s first 50 years. Events, passages, and themes are thoroughly referenced.

scholarly journals U.S. War Powers and the Potential Benefits of Comparativism

2019 ◽  
pp. 752-770
Author(s):  
Curtis A. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Military Force ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Legal Methodology

This chapter describes U.S. law governing the use of military force, and it considers the potential value of comparative study of how different countries regulate the issue. As the chapter notes, there is significant uncertainty and debate in the United States over the distribution of authority concerning the use of force—in particular, over whether and to what extent military actions must be authorized by Congress. Because courts in the modern era have generally declined to review the legality of military actions, disputes over this issue have had to be resolved, as a practical matter, through the political process. For those who believe that it is important to have legislative involvement in decisions to use force, the political process has not proven to be satisfactory: presidents have often used military force without obtaining congressional approval, and Congress generally has done little to resist such presidential unilateralism. The United States is not the only country to struggle with regulating the domestic authority to use military force. This issue of foreign relations law is common to constitutional democracies, and nations vary substantially in how they have addressed it. Comparative study of such approaches should be of inherent interest to scholars and students, including those trying to better understand the U.S. approach. Whether and to what extent such study should also inform the interpretation or revision of U.S. law presents a more complicated set of questions that are affected in part by one’s legal methodology and how the comparative materials are being invoked.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document