Search

Begin New Search Topic Legal Theory Political Geography United States of America

1. Legal Conservatism and the Progressive Blame Game

Author:
Jesse Merriam
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Humanitas
Institution:
The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Abstract:
In a recent essay in The Independent Review, I praised Bruce Frohnen and George Carey’s Constitutional Morality as “one of the best, if not the best, constitutional law books of the last decade.” As I explained in that review essay, Constitutional Morality is distinct from many other excellent pieces of constitutional law scholarship in both its ideological breadth and analytical depth. By “ideological breadth,” I am referring to how, as compared to other works in constitutional law and theory, Constitutional Morality resists partisan tropes and examines how both conservatives and liberals alike have derogated their constitutional duties. The book thereby exposes the deficiencies of the bipartisan consensus supporting our constitutional order. Constitutional Morality’s publication in 2016 is thus particularly apt, as the presidential election that year represents a reconsideration of the commitments and coalitions underlying our national political parties and institutions
Topic:
Legal Theory, Conservatism, Ideology, Progressivism, Legal Sector, and Partisanship
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Reflections on Judicial Duty

Author:
Patricia M. Lines
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Humanitas
Institution:
The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Abstract:
In this timely study Bruce Frohnen and George Carey uncover serious lapses in the operation of our federal government—lapses which constitute a depressing failure to be true to the Constitution. The authors charge all three branches of the federal government with neglect of their constitutional duties and, all too often, exceeding their constitutional authority. Congress has delegated law-making responsibilities to administrative agencies and has not exercised oversight of the agencies it has created. Presidents have usurped lawmaking functions through executive orders, and the Supreme Court has failed to check the reach of the legislative and executive branches. I applaud the authors’ efforts to call attention to these serious problems. While I agree with the Frohnen and Carey concerning the Court’s failure to check the excesses of the executive and legislative branches, especially during the New Deal, I respectfully disagree that the Supreme Court has exceeded its judicial power. To make their case, our authors focus on just one highly controversial and unpopular case, Roe v. Wade. I will argue that the Court in this matter has remained within its constitutional boundaries, following common law and its own self-imposed rules.
Topic:
Governance, Legal Theory, Judiciary, Legal Sector, and Abortion
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. A Response to Critics

Author:
Bruce P. Frohnen
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Humanitas
Institution:
The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Abstract:
My thanks to the participants in this symposium. I know that my co-author, George Carey, would be as gratified as I am at the serious consideration given, here, to Constitutional Morality and the Rise of Quasi-Law. At first I was puzzled by William Gangi’s summation of our book as one that addresses the adage that “a constitution originating in one country may not be transplanted to another country and be expected to work in the same manner as it had in the country of origin.” The book includes some comparative analysis of constitutions to show their reliance on the underlying culture for their success and the importance of the fit between tradition and text. Still, it focuses on the American Constitution, not on the application of any country’s constitution to other countries. Then again, as Gangi notes, in a more fundamental sense our book is about the interaction between the written constitution of the United States and the unwritten constitution of institutions, beliefs, and practices that shaped the American people, the American culture, and the constitutional morality that until fairly recently held officials to their public duties. This is a particular instance of the universal problem of “fit” between constitution and culture.
Topic:
Governance, Constitution, Legal Theory, and Legal Sector
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. Frontier Justice: A New Approach for U.S. Rule of Law Assistance

Author:
Robert M. Perito and Donald J. Planty
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
United States rule of law assistance is failing to help recipient governments provide good governance, security and justice. This is particularly true in three categories of states in crisis: (1) states that are experiencing extreme levels of organized criminal violence; (2) states where international Islamist terrorism is attempting to impose extreme versions of Shariah law; and (3) states where corrupt authoritarian governments have morphed into kleptocracies. Though conditions have changed in these countries, U.S. rule of law assistance continues to employ a fragmented and technocratic approach to improving foreign criminal justice systems. Dedicated officials, civil society leaders, and concerned citizens in these countries want to establish the rule of law. In many cases, our current assistance does not help them change the prevailing paradigm. What new approaches for U.S. rule of law assistance are required to provide them with the support needed to change the system? In countries threatened by criminal violence, terrorism, and corrupt authoritarian rule, the study found that those working to promote a democratic political process believed rule of law was the essential element in providing good governance, security, and justice. They pointed out that law enforcement authorities and the criminal justice system were primary targets for those seeking to impose despotic regimes. They looked to the United States as a natural ally sharing common values and providing a model of what they can achieve. These individuals confirmed the critical importance of U.S. assistance in preventing further deterioration in the local conditions and to providing any hope that the situation might be improved. In all cases, these activists lamented the fact that U.S. rule of law assistance programs were often not strategically focused, culturally relevant, or adequately resourced. They made clear that more—not less—U.S. help is required to move forward. Indeed, they called for increased use of U.S. political and diplomatic leverage, closer consultations on program selection and development, and more intelligent targeting of financial resources. Whether aimed at establishing justice, enabling economic development, or promoting foreign investment, U.S. rule of law assistance has been a tool of U.S. foreign and national security policy since the end of World War II. The Obama Administration, however, subordinated rule of law programming to assistance for promoting democracy, protecting human rights, and enabling good governance. There also was a sharp drop in the financial resources devoted to aiding the justice sector. Outside of large programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding for aid to courts and corrections fell from several billion dollars to $1.9 billion in 2013 to less than $500 million in 2016. At the same time, rule of law assistance became ‘securitized’ with assistance increasingly focused on convicting and incarcerating drug traffickers and terrorists. The study identified other conditions and practices that undermined the effectiveness of U.S. rule of law programming. From the Washington perspective there is no readily knowable number for the total amount the United States spends annually on rule of law assistance, nor is there a common policy, doctrine, strategy, or coordinating mechanism for this aid. Funding is provided from a number of legislative funding sources, allocated to various government departments, and then spread among numerous implementing partners, primarily non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and commercial contractors. Assistance programs militarize civilian security forces and train prosecutors to charge terrorism suspects and jailors to prevent radicalization. Government agencies concerned with the rule of law programming utilize staff with legal and law enforcement backgrounds largely as advisors and rely upon generic program officers to handle program design, funding and program management. As a result, establishing the rule of law is less a tool than an end state that hopefully will result from programs to ensure free elections, fight drug trafficking, and counter violent extremism. In the field, the study found the administration of U.S. rule of law assistance is neither strategically focused nor designed to produce sustainable change. U.S. programs fail to emphasize that state building efforts are political initiatives and not technical exercises. Program funding is not concentrated to achieve objectives and mobilize sufficient local support. In areas where criminals, jihadists, and insurgents operate without respect for national borders, U.S. assistance does not have a regional perspective. Project implementation is also affected by a lack of U.S. government staff with legal and law enforcement backgrounds on the ground and by risk adverse State Department personnel policies that restrict the movement of U.S. officials making it difficult for them to meet with counterparts and visit project sites to access progress.
Topic:
Security, Governance, Legal Theory, Rule of Law, Borders, and Legal Sector
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. General Principles Regarding the Legal Validity of RUD

Author:
Eric Chung
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
This paper examines the legal validity of reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) in both U.S. and international courts. The analysis is based on 46 U.S. cases discussing RUDs as a general category and 26 U.S. cases discussing interpretative understandings and declarations, out of approximately 650 reviewed cases. The analysis is also based on 13 cases from international courts out of approximately 300 reviewed cases, including cases from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) tribunal and arbitral bodies, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter- American Court of Human Rights. In the U.S. cases, RUDs are nearly always recognized as valid. For example, non-self- execution reservations in the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are usually treated as legally controlling. The same is true for the reservation to the ICCPR that reserves the right to use capital punishment on juveniles despite treaty prohibitions, as well as interpretative understandings and declarations defining specific terms used in the CAT. U.S. courts have only questioned the validity of RUDs when they were not properly communicated to other state parties, did not support a contrary interpretation, or focused on issues of wholly domestic concern (although the only case on this point was vacated and is not precedential). In addition, individual circuit judges, writing in dissent, have examined whether RUDs violate the separation of powers principle or are inconsistent with the treaty language and international law. With few exceptions, international courts also usually defer to RUDs. The ICJ has indicated that it can invalidate a reservation as incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty pursuant to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. Yet the ICJ has only invalidated a RUD when it determined that a reservation was in fact an interpretative declaration (as opposed to a reservation modifying the state’s legal obligations under the treaty). This has been particularly important in cases where the treaty in question prohibits reservations, such as the UNCLOS. Rules stipulated by a treaty also shape how other courts review RUDs. The European Court of Human Rights, for instance, applies treaty rules to invalidate RUDs that are of a general character or fail to include a statement of the law concerned. Following a number of practices can reduce a RUD’s vulnerability to invalidation in U.S. and international courts. For U.S. courts, a RUD is extremely unlikely to be questioned if it is documented clearly at the time of ratification and communicated to all treaty parties at the time of ratification. For international courts, a RUD is unlikely to be questioned if, in addition to the above factors, it is not counter to the “object and purpose” of a treaty, it is not objected to by other parties, and it is not a reservation masquerading as an interpretive declaration in a situation where reservations are prohibited by the relevant treaty.
Topic:
Human Rights, Law, Legal Theory, and Courts
Political Geography:
United States of America and North America

6. EU Privacy Regulation: Implications for U.S. and EI Law Enforcement

Author:
Carlton Forbes and Jacob Victor
Publication Date:
12-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
In January 2012, the European Commission released drafts of two new pieces of legislation that would provide more stringent and more uniform regulation to the processing of electronic data relating to EU citizens. The proposed General Data Protection Regulation would govern the processing of data for general purposes, while the proposed Criminal Justice Directive would govern data processed in the specific context of criminal investigations. The Data Protection Regulation has proven controversial because of the significant number of requirements it imposes on private data processors, including requirements that the processor notify a consumer when her data is shared with a third party, and requirements that processors respect a number of new individual rights, such as the right of a consumer to request that her data be deleted (a.k.a. “the right to be forgotten”). Furthermore, the Regulation would mandate that many non-EU corporations would need to comply with its requirements when processing the data of EU citizens, or face harsh penalties. This memo summarizes the existing EU data protection regime, analyzes the changes proposed by the new Data Protection Regulation and Criminal Justice Directive, and explores the implications of this new legislation for U.S. criminal and national security investigations. We arrive at three main conclusions
Topic:
Law Enforcement, Law, European Union, Regulation, and Legal Theory
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

7. UNCLOS Dispute Settlement in Context: The United States’ Record in International Arbitration Proceedings

Author:
Julia Brower, Christina Koningisor, Ryan Liss, and Michael Shih
Publication Date:
12-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
The United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a compulsory dispute settlement regime for resolving disagreements between member states. Critics of the Convention have argued that the mandatory dispute resolution provisions force member states to cede too much control over the dispute resolution process to an international body. They have also argued that the dispute resolution process is biased against the United States, and that the United States tends to fare poorly in international arbitration proceedings. This report addresses the first criticism by examining possible exceptions to mandatory dispute resolution provisions. At least one Annex VII tribunal has interpreted Article 281(1) of UNCLOS to permit states to contract around the mandatory dispute resolution provision through regional agreements. However, a subsequent tribunal applied a much more constrained interpretation of the Article 281 exception. Ultimately, the impact of this exception will depend upon which interpretation is applied. The report also examines the scope of the Article 298(1)(c) exception, which exempts from binding resolution “disputes in respect of which the Security Council . . . is exercising the functions assigned to it by the [U.N.] Charter.” This exception is not confined to specific subject matters, but it is limited by the procedural difficulties of adding or removing an item from the Security Council’s agenda, as well as by the political costs that such an effort entails. Finally, the report notes that UNCLOS’s compulsory dispute settlement regime is not accompanied by similarly robust enforcement provisions. The report addresses the second criticism by examining the United States’ record in arbitration proceedings under eighteen multilateral treaties containing mandatory dispute resolution provisions, as well as a series of bilateral aviation agreements that provide for mandatory dispute resolution. Fifteen of those agreements have yielded very few readily identifiable arbitration proceedings involving the United States.
Topic:
International Law, United Nations, Legal Theory, and Arbitration
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. Internationally Protected Persons: The Status of Consular Employees

Author:
Ryan Liss
Publication Date:
01-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
This memorandum considers whether consular employees and their family members constitute “internationally protected persons” (IPPs) under 18 U.S.C. § 112. In addition, the memorandum briefly considers whether an assault against the child of a consular employee abroad meets the jurisdictional nexus requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 112, such that the assault could be prosecuted in U.S. courts. It concludes that existing U.S. and foreign law and state practice do not provide a definitive definition of IPPs that either clearly includes or excludes consular employees. Moreover, the status of a consular employee’s child is similarly unclear, as the status of consular employees’ family members depends on that of the employee. However, while a definitive answer is not provided, the travaux preparatoires of the relevant treaties and one U.S. decision at least suggest that consular employees are excluded from the definition of IPPs. Part I explains that the applicable U.S. statutory provisions do not provide an exhaustive definition of who constitutes an IPP. The statute relies instead on the definition of IPPs at international law. In addition, there are no U.S. cases directly on point, so the existing case law does not foreclose the possibility that a consular employee might qualify as an IPP. However, the court’s logic in one case, United States v. Marcano-Garcia,2 which relied on the assault victim’s status as honorary consul under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in determining his IPP status, suggests that a consular employee would not fall within the definition. The exclusion of consular employees from the definition of IPPs is also arguably supported by the international treaties that 18 U.S.C. § 112 was drafted to implement, as well as those treaties’ travaux préparatoires. Part II looks to foreign and international law. There are indications in statements made via United Nations reporting processes that some states regard themselves as obligated to protect consular employees. But these statements are vague and are not supported by a similar trend in foreign domestic legislation or foreign case law. Part III shows that even if a consular employee and his or her child qualify as IPPs, the jurisdictional nexus under 18 U.S.C. § 112 must be met. For American courts to exercise jurisdiction in this case, the provision requires that the accused either be a U.S. national or be present on U.S. territory. Having concluded that the law does not support a definitive conclusion regarding whether a consular employee qualifies as an IPP, Part IV concludes by discussing policy considerations both in favor of and against extending such protection to consular employees.
Topic:
Law, Legal Theory, Protected People, and Diplomatic Immunity
Political Geography:
United States of America and North America

9. Lessons from the Past for Foreign Sovereign Immunity After Samantar v. Yousuf

Author:
Saurrabh Sanghvi
Publication Date:
11-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
In Samantar v. Yousuf,2 the Supreme Court held that an individual sued personally for acts taken as a foreign official did not enjoy any immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), a statute governing when courts should provide foreign states with sovereign immunity.3 After Samantar, immunity in any individual official suit will likely be determined through reference to the pre-FSIA federal common law. This report outlines the pre-FSIA practices4 of the U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) and the courts to provide insight into how individual official suits may be handled in the wake of Samantar.5 If courts follow historical practice, they will likely rely heavily on State Department “suggestions of immunity” in determining whether immunity will be granted to individuals for actions taken as foreign officials. Moreover, when the Department is silent, the courts will likely interpret State Department policy to determine whether immunity is appropriate.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Law, Legal Theory, and Immunity
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America