Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Jurisdiction (4)
- Human rights (2)
- Alternative dispute resolution (1)
- CJPTA (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
-
- Civil rights—Africa (1)
- Comparative law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Conflict of laws (1)
- Courts (1)
- Customary international law (1)
- Cybercrime (1)
- Dispute resolution (1)
- Electronic Evidence (1)
- Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1)
- FPIC (1)
- Freedom of movement (International law) (1)
- Full faith and credit (1)
- Hague Conference (1)
- Hague Judgments Convention (1)
- Human rights—Africa (1)
- ILO 169 (1)
- Indian (1)
- Indigenous (1)
- International Law (1)
- International and municipal law (1)
- International courts (1)
- International economic law (1)
- International law (1)
- Judicial power (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in International Law
Operationalizing Free, Prior, And Informed Consent, Carla F. Fredericks
Operationalizing Free, Prior, And Informed Consent, Carla F. Fredericks
Publications
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has acknowledged varying ways in which international actors can protect, respect and remedy the rights of indigenous peoples. One of these methods is the concept of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as described in Articles 10, 19, 28 and 29. There has been much debate in the international community over the legal status of the UNDRIP, and member states have done little to implement it. In applied contexts, many entities like extractive industries and conservation groups are aware of risks inherent in not soliciting FPIC and have endeavored to …
The Continuing Evolution Of U.S. Judgments Recognition Law, Ronald A. Brand
The Continuing Evolution Of U.S. Judgments Recognition Law, Ronald A. Brand
Articles
The substantive law of judgments recognition in the United States has evolved from federal common law, found in a seminal Supreme Court opinion, to primary reliance on state law in both state and federal courts. While state law often is found in a local version of a uniform act, this has not brought about true uniformity, and significant discrepancies exist among the states. These discrepancies in judgments recognition law, combined with a common policy on the circulation of internal judgments under the United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, have created opportunities for forum shopping and litigation strategies that …
Cross-Border Evidence Gathering In Transnational Criminal Investigation: Is The Microsoft Ireland Case The 'Next Frontier'?, Robert Currie
Cross-Border Evidence Gathering In Transnational Criminal Investigation: Is The Microsoft Ireland Case The 'Next Frontier'?, Robert Currie
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
A recent and prominent American appeals court case has revived a controversial international law question: can a state compel a person on its territory to obtain and produce material which the person owns or controls, but which is stored on the territory of a foreign state? The case involved, United States v. Microsoft, features electronic data stored offshore which was sought in the context of a criminal prosecution. It highlights the current legal complexity surrounding the cross-border gathering of electronic evidence, which has produced friction and divergent state practice. The author here contends that the problems involved are best understood—and …
The Court Jurisdiction And Proceedings Transfer Act And The Hague Conference’S Judgments And Jurisdiction Projects, Joost Blom
All Faculty Publications
The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA) codifies the substantive law of jurisdiction in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. One of the questions that may be posed by the future of the CJPTA is how the jurisdictional system that it enacts would function in relation to two potential international conventions that are contemplated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. One, a convention on the enforcement of judgments, is in an advanced stage of negotiation and may well be adopted by the Hague Conference. It deals with jurisdiction indirectly, by defining jurisdictional standards or “filters” that must …
Sub-Regional Courts In Africa: Litigating The Hybrid Right To Freedom Of Movement, Laurence R. Helfer
Sub-Regional Courts In Africa: Litigating The Hybrid Right To Freedom Of Movement, Laurence R. Helfer
Faculty Scholarship
Human rights attorneys and civil society groups in Africa have recently focused their advocacy efforts on sub-regional courts associated with economic integration communities in East, West and Southern Africa. The East African Court of Justice (EACJ), the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Tribunal of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have received few suits challenging trade restrictions and other barriers to sub-regional integration. Instead, and surprisingly, the courts’ dockets are dominated by complaints alleging violations of international human rights law.
This article offers the first analysis of EACJ, ECOWAS Court and …
Custom In Our Courts: Reconciling Theory With Reality In The Debate About Erie Railroad And Customary International Law, Nikki C. Gutierrez, Mitu Gulati
Custom In Our Courts: Reconciling Theory With Reality In The Debate About Erie Railroad And Customary International Law, Nikki C. Gutierrez, Mitu Gulati
Faculty Scholarship
One of the most heated debates of the last two decades in U.S. legal academia focuses on customary international law’s domestic status after Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. At one end, champions of the “modern position” support customary international law’s (“CIL”) wholesale incorporation into post-Erie federal common law. At the other end, “revisionists” argue that federal courts cannot apply CIL as federal law absent federal legislative authorization. Scholars on both sides of the Erie debate also make claims about the sources judges reference when discerning CIL. They then use these claims to support their arguments regarding CIL’s domestic status. Interestingly, neither …
Pennoyer Was Right, Stephen E. Sachs
Pennoyer Was Right, Stephen E. Sachs
Faculty Scholarship
Pennoyer v. Neff has a bad rap. As an original matter, Pennoyer is legally correct. Compared to current doctrine, it offers a more coherent and attractive way to think about personal jurisdiction and interstate relations generally.
To wit: The Constitution imposes no direct limits on personal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction isn't a matter of federal law, but of general law -- that unwritten law, including much of the English common law and the customary law of nations, that formed the basis of the American legal system. Founding-era states were free to override that law and to exercise more expansive jurisdiction. But if …