Law Commons^™

U.S. Practices In Risk Assessment And Risk Management For Product Safety Under Article 2.2 Of The Agreement On Technical Barriers To Trade, Suckhong Ko

LLM Theses and Essays

Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) was applied to the GATT member countries in 1995. This article provides national product safety agencies with requirements for risk assessment and risk management. However, the terms used in the article are broad and open to interpretation. This paper argues that vast discretion and broad terms cannot solve technical barriers effectively; the “minimum requirements” standard within Article 2.2 of the TBT fails to consider those countries whose technology in product safety is inferior to that of developed countries. The United States has some of the strongest product safety measures, …

"Constructing" Nation Within States: The Quest For Federal Recognition By The Catawba And Lumbee Tribes, Anne Merline Mcculloch, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

Creating and in some cases re-creating viable tribal political communities within the construct of modern nation-state has proven to be a troublesome task for indigenous populations worldwide. The task for indigenous governments in the United States has been further complication by federalism's divisions of power between the states and the national government. Native American tribes often find themselves waging a two-front battle in which they must resist state encroachments over their lands and their inherent government authority; while at the same time they must lobby the federal government for protection of those same lands and powers.

History is replete with …

The Four Doctrines Of Self-Executing Treaties, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are "self-executing" and those that are not. The precise nature of this distinction--indeed, its very existence--is a matter of some controversy and much confusion. More than one lower federal court has pronounced the distinction to be the "most confounding" in the United States law of treaties. A tremendous amount of scholarship has sought to clarify this distinction, but the honest observer cannot but agree with John Jackson's observation that " [t]he substantial volume of scholarly writing on this issue has not yet resolved the confusion" surrounding it. The …