Law Commons^™

United States Opposition To The 1998 Rome Statute Establishing An International Criminal Court: Is The Court's Jurisdiction Truly Complementary To National Criminal Jurisdictions?, Jimmy Gurule

Journal Articles

Although the United States supports the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), it opposes such a court as set forth in the 1998 Rome Statute because it leaves open the potential for United States military personnel and government officials to be prosecuted for unintended loss of civilian life. Can the United States formulate a legal argument to support its view that inadvertent civilian casualties should not be considered a war crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC? The article argues that it can because the ICC’s jurisdiction under the Rome Statute is not complementary to national prosecutions held …

Taxing Citizens In A Global Economy, Michael S. Kirsch

Journal Articles

This Article addresses a fundamental issue underlying the U.S. tax system in the international context: the use of citizenship as a jurisdictional basis for imposing income tax. As a general matter, the United States is the only economically developed country that taxes its citizens abroad on their foreign income.

Despite this broad general assertion of taxing jurisdiction, Congress allows citizens abroad to exclude a limited amount of their income earned from working outside the United States. Influential lobbying groups, including businesses that employ significant numbers of U.S. citizens abroad, argue that this exclusion is necessary in order to keep American …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Journal Articles

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

Empowering United States Courts To Hear Crimes Within The Jurisdiction Of The International Criminal Court, Douglass Cassel

Journal Articles

United States courts have only incomplete and uneven jurisdiction, most acquired piecemeal and only in recent years, to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed outside our borders. Recent developments in international law and practice-especially the heightened commitment of democracies including the United States to end impunity for atrocities, and the imminent prospect of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) with worldwide jurisdiction-suggest the need to expand and rationalize the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to make it coextensive with that of the ICC.

It now appears all but certain that the ICC will come into being in the …

Subsidiarity And Competition: Decentralized Enforcement Of Eu Competition Laws, Roger P. Alford

Journal Articles

The purpose of this article is to examine how the European Union has applied, and potentially will apply, the principle of subsidiarity in the enforcement of EU competition laws. This article thus focuses on how the Union envisages national court participation in the application and enforcement of EU competition laws rather than how, in practice, Member State courts have exercised their concurrent jurisdiction in enforcing Articles 85 and 86. Part One provides a brief introduction to EU competition law enforcement and examines two recent decisions by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance clarifying the relationship between …

The Extraterritorial Application Of Antitrust Laws: The United States And European Community Approaches, Roger P. Alford

Journal Articles

This Arti­cle compares the differing approaches of the United States and the European Community as they wrestle with the question of how to regulate foreign anticompetitive activity. More specifically, this Arti­cle highlights the distinctive features of the U.S. "effects doctrine" and the European Community's "implementation approach" and ana­lyzes the differences that exist between the two systems. Only the U.S. doctrine openly provides for the consideration of international comity concerns, but both approaches have been used liberally to assert jurisdiction over foreign defendants. Part II of this Article pro­vides a background to the subject by briefly outlining the traditional bases of …