Review: Foreign Relations Law of the United States Restatement of the Law. Second

1968 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-222
Author(s):  
D. J. Harris
1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney

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.


1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron

The object of this article is to examine and evaluate the Fishermen's Protective Act, as reflecting the legal strategy of the United States in one particular area of its foreign relations law of importance to both the law of the sea and the law of international claims.


This book, The Restatement and Beyond, grapples with the most significant issues in contemporary U.S. foreign relations law. The chapters in this text respond to the recently published Fourth Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law. They review the context and assumptions on which that work relied, criticize that work for its analysis and conclusions, and explore topics left out of the published work that need research and development. Collectively, the essays in this book provide an authoritative study of the issues generating controversy today as those most likely to emerge in the coming decade. The book is organized in six parts. The first part provides a historical context for the law of foreign relations from the beginning of the twentieth century, when the United States first envisioned itself as a peer and competitor of the major European powers, to the present, when the United States, although a hegemon, faces deep unrest and uncertainty with respect to its position in the world. The next four parts look at contested issues in foreign relations law today, specifically the law of treaties, the role of domestic courts in interpreting and applying international law, the limits on domestic jurisdiction, and the law of immunity as to states, international organizations, and foreign government officials. The last part considers what this body of law might look like in the future as well as the difficulties raised by using the Restatement process as a way of contributing to the law’s development.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-135
Author(s):  
William S Dodge

Abstract In 2018, the American Law Institute published the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law, which restates the law of the United States governing jurisdiction, state immunity, and judgments. These issues arise with great frequency in international cases brought in US courts, including cases involving Chinese parties. This article provides an overview of many of the key provisions of the Restatement (Fourth). The article describes the Restatement (Fourth)’s treatment of the customary international law of jurisdiction, as well the rules of US domestic law based on international comity that US courts apply when deciding international cases.


2020 ◽  
pp. 391-410
Author(s):  
Beth Stephens

This chapter evaluates the “terrorism” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets out to “restate” the law of the United States and “relevant portions of international law,” not to critique U.S. law or settle debates about the content of international law. However, that task is complicated when the law of the United States triggers questions about unresolved international law issues. The “terrorism” exception to the FSIA illustrates this complexity. Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary have employed the exception as a politically motivated weapon to target disfavored states, while excluding U.S. allies, politically powerful states, and the United States itself from the reach of the statute. The text of the Fourth Restatement merely restates the U.S. law governing the “terrorism” exception, without identifying international law concerns or analyzing the issues they raise. The chapter, by contrast, offers a critique of the “terrorism” exception, focusing on the statute as written, as amended to reach particular targets, and as applied in practice. A well-crafted statutory exception to sovereign immunity for state human rights violations would be a welcome addition to human rights accountability. The “terrorism” exception falls far short of that goal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document