Law Commons^™

Interim Measures In International Human Rights: Evolution And Harmonization, Jo M. Pasqualucci

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

In this Article, the Author undertakes a comprehensive study of interim measures ordered in human rights cases before six international enforcement bodies--the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the United Nations Committee against Torture, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. An order of interim measures may require that the State take positive action, such as providing protection for human rights activists or journalists, or it may call upon the State to refrain from taking action, such as not extraditing a person or delaying …

Advancing U.S. Interests With The International Criminal Court, David J. Scheffer, Ambassador

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

It is a great pleasure to be here in this beautiful lecture hall at Vanderbilt University Law School and to have the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon about the International Criminal Court (ICC). In recent months, one newspaper or magazine article after another, in examining the foreign policy of the current administration and the gulf (which seems to be so pronounced now) between the United States and even its closest allies throughout the rest of the world, has listed a basic set of treaties as being partly explanatory of that gulf. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, is always …

The Demise Of Hypothetical Jurisdiction In The Federal Courts, Scott C. Idleman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Recent years have witnessed a modest but expanding Supreme Court effort to return the national government to its structural first principles.' Foremost among these is that federal power, although vast, is neither inherent nor unbounded, but consists only of that granted by the Constitution. In 1998, the Court remained steadfast to this precept, thwarting yet another attempt by a federal branch to exceed its limited and enumerated constitutional powers. This time, however, the perpetrator was none other than the Article IH judiciary itself. In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, the Court formally denounced the federal court practice …

Case Digest, Journal Staff

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Case Digest--

Spouse of Injured Seaman May Recover Damages for Loss of Society under Maritime Common Law

Federal District Court Lacks Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1350 over Fraud Action Brought by Alien when Claim Fails to Implicate a Treaty or Body of Rules Governing Relations between Foreign States

Jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Requires at Least a Finding of International Shoe "Minimum Contacts"

Appellate Court will not Review the Post-Settlement Appeal of a Pre-Settlement Provisional Remedy without District Court Consideration of the Intervening Events

Foreign States are Subject to Liability for Non-Commercial Torts arising from the Commercial …

Jurisdiction And Procedure Of The Court Of Justice Of The European Communities, Robert A. Buchanan

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Court of Justice of the European Communities is the final adjudicatory body for questions arising under the three Community treaties--the European Economic Community Treaty (EEC), the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty (ECSC), and the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty (EUR-ATOM). Since none of the treaties confers upon the Court the power to adjudicate questions involving the domestic laws of Member States, the Court's jurisdiction extends only to interpretation of Community law. Basically, the jurisdiction of the Court can be divided into the following subject areas: actions against Member States, actions against Community institutions, claims for damages against the …

Equity -- 1961 Tennessee Survey (Ii), T. A. Smedley

Vanderbilt Law Review

During the current survey period, each of the higher Tennessee courts has been called upon to exercise its injunctive powers in significant and perplexing types of controversies. The court of appeals for the western section had to decide whether to take the risk of interfering in a bitter dispute between opposing factions of a church which had been torn by interfraternal strife for several years. In the middle section court of appeals an injunction was sought to restrain a store owner from operating his business under the name of a former manager of the store who had left this position …

Jurisdiction Of United States District Courts In Multiple-Claim Cases, Thomas F. Green Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

The jurisdictional problem peculiar to a case which involves more than one claim is: Shall the court entertain the entire action when it would have jurisdiction of one or more of the claims, but not all, if they were sued separately?' The application of this question to the United States district courts raises conflicting considerations. On the one hand is the fact that most of the claims which would not be within federal jurisdiction if sued alone, present questions of state rather than federal law. In general the more appropriate tribunals to deal with such questions in the first instance …

Jury Trial In Chancery Court In Tennessee, Frank C. Ingraham

Vanderbilt Law Review

Tennessee has since 1827 maintained, in some degree, a separate court of equity, presided over by a chancellor. Though most states have abolished the procedural distinction between cases in law and suits in equity, Tennessee still retains this dichotomy in its court system. Prior to 1827 law and equity were dispensed in Tennessee by a single court of general jurisdiction, the Superior Court of Law. This practice grew out of the North Carolina Act of 1782 and the continuation of that Act by the First Territorial Legislature in 1794, both of which gave equity jurisdiction to the Superior Court of …

Jurisdictional Amount In The Federal District Courts, William W. Hurst

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1925, Judge Dobie, then professor of law at the University of Virginia, advanced a formula for determining the value of the matter in controversy in all federal question and diverse citizenship cases in the federal district courts. He called it a "plaintiff-viewpoint rule," and stated it thus: "The amount in controversy in the United States District Court is always to be determined by the value to the plaintiff of the right which he in good faith asserts in his pleading that sets forth the operative facts which constitute his cause of action."

Since then, the rule has received sanction …