Five Conceptions of the Function of Foreign Relations Law

Author(s):  
Campbell McLachlan

The comparative study of foreign relations law must first grapple with a conundrum: outside the United States, the field enjoys no wide currency or commonly accepted scope, yet the set of problems with which it is concerned arise at an interface with which all states must engage: between international law and national constitutional law. This chapter argues that the essential point of departure for effective comparative analysis is to adopt a functional approach, identifying what functions foreign relations law performs. In doing so, it identifies five different conceptions of the function of foreign relations law that shape the way in which jurists have approached the field. These conceptions are: (1) exclusionary: to separate the international from the national, taking the exercise of foreign relations out of the purview of national law; (2) internationalist: to mediate the inward reception of international law into the domestic legal system; (3) constitutional: to distribute the exercise of the foreign relations law between the organs of government; (4) diplomatic: to facilitate the diplomatic relations of the state with other states; and (5) allocative: to allocate jurisdiction and applicable law in matters concerning the exercise or enforcement of the public power of states. The chapter critically assesses the persuasive power and the potential shortcomings of each of these conceptions. Using the example of domestic cases engaging peremptory norms, it shows how the allocative approach helps to give a better explanation of when and why domestic courts intervene to enforce or apply such rules.

Author(s):  
Congyan Cai

This chapter adds a Chinese perspective to the comparative study of how national courts treat international law. The chapter finds that the application of international law in Chinese courts is influenced by several major factors, including China’s ambivalence toward international law, the role that the judiciary plays in China’s national governance, and the professional competence of Chinese judges. In particular, the failure of China’s Constitution to specify the status of international law makes secondary laws less likely to embrace international law: many secondary laws do not mention international law at all; only a modest number of secondary laws automatically incorporate international law. This also means that Chinese judges are discouraged from invoking international law in adjudicating disputes. However, in line with and in support of China’s economic opening policy since the late 1970s, Chinese judges regularly apply those treaties that deal with commercial relations between private actors. A major development is that, as China rises as a great power, Chinese courts have begun to prudently become more involved in foreign relations by applying international law.


Author(s):  
Karen Knop

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 145-178
Author(s):  
Gary Born

This chapter looks at the grave flaws in the current treatment of international law in American courts. Both the status and content of public and private international law in the United States are uncertain, frequently governed by contradictory or parochial rules of State law; the resulting body of international law that is applied by U.S. courts is unpredictable and incoherent. Over the past fifty years, U.S. federal courts have also increasingly marginalized both international law and the role of American courts in resolving international disputes. This treatment of international law threatens serious damage to historic U.S. values and frustrates vitally important national policies. The chapter then considers how the current treatment of international law in American courts is also contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s allocation of authority over the nation’s foreign relations and international trade, which vests the federal government with both plenary and exclusive authority over U.S. foreign relations and commerce, while, exceptionally, forbidding State involvement in either field. Moreover, this treatment conflicts with vital national interests and policies in both fields, frustrating long-standing national interests in the nation’s compliance with international law and development of the international legal system.


2020 ◽  
pp. 315-339
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack

Rounding out the matrix of accountability, chapter 8 presents several nonpenal options to bring justice to Syria, including civil suits in domestic courts against responsible individuals and entities and options for exercising jurisdiction over the sovereign state of Syria. Because there is no notion of state criminality under international law, only civil claims seeking money damages can be advanced against sovereign states. Jurisdiction over Syria exists before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; however, so far no state has been willing to take Syria to task before the ICJ. And so, victims must bear this burden. In this regard, some tort law options exist in domestic courts, especially in the United States with its suite of statutes giving its domestic courts jurisdiction over certain international law violations in certain circumstances. This chapter features a groundbreaking suit against Syria under the United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which resulted in a $300 million judgment for the surviving family members of Marie Colvin, the intrepid war correspondent assassinated by the Syrian regime. The chapter observes that although civil remedies are no substitute for vigorous criminal liability, these suits do extend victims some dignitary benefits that may not accrue with participation in a criminal process, even as a partie civile, including the opportunity to control the litigation process and act where the public authorities may be unable or unwilling to do so.


2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Binder

After the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of war rhetoric came out of the public and private sphere within the United States of America. On October 7, 2001, however, the rhetoric turned into reality as President George W. Bush countered the terrorist attacks and the threat of future terrorism with military means. While waging that new war U.S. governmental officials constantly make one important point, and that is that the United States are just exercising their right of self-defense. Moreover, on the day after the attacks, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed the inherent right of self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Does that mean that international law is just that clear?


1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolf Sprudzs

Among the many old and new actors on the international stage of nations the United States is one of the most active and most important. The U.S. is a member of most existing intergovernmental organizations, participates in hundreds upon hundreds of international conferences and meetings every year and, in conducting her bilateral and multilateral relations with the other members of the community of nations, contributes very substantially to the development of contemporary international law. The Government of the United States has a policy of promptly informing the public about developments in its relations with other countries through a number of documentary publication, issued by the Department of State


2011 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-293
Author(s):  
Brian G. Casserly

Puget Sound provides a case study of significant changes in the West's Cold War experience and illustrates that this era can be understood in terms of two distinct phases, with a turning point in the late 1960s/early 1970s. This transition saw shifts in relationships between Puget Sound residents and the military, from a traditional, almost unanimous support for the military's presence in the region, to the development of a much more hostile attitude among some segments of the public. This change reflected growing concerns about the environment and skepticism about military-related economic growth. It was also shaped by concerns about nuclear weapons and the role of the armed services in U.S. foreign relations, the result of the rebirth of the anti-nuclear movement across the United States in the 1970s.


1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malvina Halberstam

Among the more controversial provisions of the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), are the sections dealing with the act of state doctrine in Tentative Draft No. 4. Section 428 provides: “Subject to §429, courts in the United States will refrain from examining the validity of an act of a foreign state taken in its sovereign capacity within the state’s own territory.” This provision, of course, is based on the Supreme Court decision in Sabbatino. The Court there stated, “the Judicial Branch will not examine the validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government” even if it is alleged that the taking is contrary to international law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 287-305
Author(s):  
Manuela Cárdenas Cifuentes

The figure of impeachment in the United States and that of muerte cruzada in Ecuador are two political figures created with a double purpose. The first, is to demonstrate that there is a clear division of powers in the governmental sphere; and second, to serve as a checks and balances mechanism that controls the actions of the public power, especially those of the president of the nation. As such, these figures have an important role because they seek to maintain democracy and political, social and economic stability of the countries involved. The problem that arises when trying to put these tools into practice is that they clash with the power of the strongest political parties. Thus, its effectiveness is put at risk and the doubt of its true usefulness arises. This article will focus on analyzing how effective these figures have been to remove presidents from office. To achieve that end, research will be conducted, first of all, to define both figures and find a useful meaning in their existence; later, it will analyze if there are cases in which these political figures have been tried to be applied and if they succeeded or failed and, finally, determine if the figures in these countries are truly political tools to control public power, or if they are only rhetorical figures that have no practical use since there are barriers to their real and effective application.


Lentera Hukum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Md. Toriqul Islam

Constitutional guarantees are such a body of interests or basic human rights which are inevitable for each human being. These rights are principally inherent, inalienable, and universal, and therefore, irrespective of race, sex, caste, color, or religion, everyone can enjoy them. Constitutional guarantees are distinct from all other rights and privileges because of at least two unique characteristics, such as intrinsic in nature, and inalienability. These guarantees are crucial in the state-individual relations, and recognized by major laws of the civilized nations, and often enshrined in the national constitutions. For instance, the US Constitution signifies the essence of these rights through the expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, very often, many citizens across the globe are deprived of these rights on numerous pretends and grounds, and mostly, on the public-private dichotomy. This study examined contemporary legal and philosophical discourses as to whether the constitutional guarantees of human rights apply in the private sectors in Malaysia, India, and the United States. This study used doctrinal legal research methodology with a qualitative approach based on library resources. The findings of this study showed that constitutional guarantees, primarily human rights, are presumed to have been neither created nor made but originated like organic growth. Accordingly, no authority can take them away. By examining various logics from theological to socio-historical points of view and the theory of international law, this study concluded that constitutional guarantees, particularly the equal protection of the law, should apply horizontally to cover both public and private sectors. KEYWORDS: Constitutional Guarantees, Human Rights, Public-Private Sectors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document