Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Agenda: Us-Mexico Negotiations On Improved Colorado River Management: An Update, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, Western Water Policy Program, Colorado Water Conservation Board Feb 2010

Agenda: Us-Mexico Negotiations On Improved Colorado River Management: An Update, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, Western Water Policy Program, Colorado Water Conservation Board

US-Mexico Negotiations on Improved Colorado River Management: An Update (February 19)

The United States and Mexico are currently negotiating an international accord on a variety of Colorado River water matters, including the prospects for new water projects, conservation efforts, and operational improvements. Participants are invited to hear an update on these efforts from individuals directly involved in the negotiations, including Mario López Pérez, Engineering and Technical Standards Manager in the National Water Commission of México, who is responsible for binational water issues with the USA, Guatemala and Belize.


Enforcing International Corrupt Practices Law, Paul D. Carrington Jan 2010

Enforcing International Corrupt Practices Law, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay strives to advance the current international movement to
deter the transnational corrupt practices that have long burdened the global economy and weakened governments, especially in “developing” nations. Laws made in the last decade to address this longstanding global problem have not been effectively enforced. Described here are the moderately successful efforts in the United States since 1862 to reward private citizens serving as enforcers of laws prohibiting corrupt practices. It is suggested that this American experience might be adapted by international organizations to enhance enforcement of the new public international laws.


Foreign Sovereign Immunity, Individual Officials, And Human Rights Litigation, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith Jan 2010

Foreign Sovereign Immunity, Individual Officials, And Human Rights Litigation, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

For thirty years, international human rights litigation in U.S. courts has developed with little attention to a lurking doctrinal objection to the entire enterprise. The paradigm international human rights case involves a suit against a foreign government official for alleged abuses committed abroad under color of state law. A potentially dispositive objection to this litigation is foreign sovereign immunity. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) creates presumptive immunity for foreign states and has no exception that would cover human rights cases. Many courts have assumed that the FSIA has no relevance to human rights suits as long as they ...


Discovery From Non-Parties (Third-Party Discovery) In International Arbitration, Charles O. Verrill Jr. Jan 2010

Discovery From Non-Parties (Third-Party Discovery) In International Arbitration, Charles O. Verrill Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

International arbitration rules and many arbitration laws usually provide procedures that permit tribunals to order parties to disclose documents and other materials to the other parties.1 More complex are the rules that determine opportunities to obtain discovery from persons that are not party to the arbitration (third-party discovery). This article will review third-party discovery under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the provisions of the US Code s.1782 that authorise US courts to act in aid of actions before foreign tribunals. Section 1782 has unique interest at this time because it figured prominently in the EU antitrust investigation ...


Foreign Sovereign Immunity And Domestic Officer Suits, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith Jan 2010

Foreign Sovereign Immunity And Domestic Officer Suits, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

Under international law, official-capacity suits brought against a foreign state’s officers are treated as suits against the state itself and thus as subject to the state’s immunity, even in suits alleging human rights abuses. This immunity regime differs from the immunity regime that applies in the United States in suits brought against state and federal officials for violations of federal law. Despite the federal government’s sovereign immunity and the immunity of state governments under Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, courts often allow suits against federal and state officers for their official actions. This essay attempts to explain why the ...