Law Commons^™

"So Vast An Area Of Legal Irresponsibility"? The Superior Orders Defense And Good Faith Reliance On Advice Of Counsel, Mark W.S. Hobel

National Security Law Program

This Note argues that the modern superior orders defense represents the most relevant and just paradigm for assessing the potential criminal liability of U.S. interrogators who claim that they were authorized and counseled by government lawyers prior to using techniques that likely constituted torture. However, recent U.S. law, most importantly sections of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, constitutes an extension of the superior orders defense as it would apply to interrogators, and may not only fully immunize government officials and agents involved in interrogations, but also disrupt emerging international legal norms surrounding the superior orders defense.

Part I of …

Medellin And Sanchez-Llamas: Treaties From John Jay To John Roberts, Lori Fisler Damrosch

Faculty Scholarship

Medellin v. Texas and Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon were the first opportunities for the U.S. Supreme Court to speak in the voice of Chief Justice John Roberts on several of the biggest questions at the connecting points between the U.S. legal order and the rest of the world. In writing for the majority in these cases, the new Chief Justice sent signals to several different audiences about whether and how the United States will fulfill its international obligations. The messages differ markedly from those sent by the divided Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which Roberts did not participate. Hamdan was …

Kiobel And Corporate Immunity Under The Alien Tort Statute: The Struggle For Clarity Post-Sosa, Dorothy S. Lund

Faculty Scholarship

In September 2010, a two-judge Second Circuit majority ruled that corporations are immune from liability under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”). This statute, which grants aliens access to federal district courts, has emerged as a controversial tool for international norm enforcement in the last thirty years. The unexpected decision to foreclose corporate liability has generated a wave of criticism from human rights activists and international law scholars who claim that the decision is grounded in a fundamental misunderstanding of international law.

This commentary examines the Kiobel decision against other recent interpretations of the ATS, especially those following the Supreme Court’s …