Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rethinking Subsidiarity In International Human Rights Adjudication, William M. Carter Jr.
Rethinking Subsidiarity In International Human Rights Adjudication, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
This article suggests that a re-evaluation of the principle of subsidiarity is in order. While I make no sweeping claims that the principle of subsidiarity is always preferable or always undesirable, I do suggest that a close look at the myriad ways in which subsidiarity applies reveals that it may sometimes impede, rather than advance, the cause it purports to serve: namely, achieving universality of human rights. This article identifies situations where subsidiarity is more likely to diminish human rights protections that it is to advance them and suggests that subsidiarity should be abandoned or minimized in such areas.
An Empirical Examination Of Product And Litigant-Specific Theories For The Divergence Between Nafta Chapter 19 And U.S. Judicial Review, Juscelino F. Colares
An Empirical Examination Of Product And Litigant-Specific Theories For The Divergence Between Nafta Chapter 19 And U.S. Judicial Review, Juscelino F. Colares
Faculty Publications
Empirical analysis of NAFTA panel review has shown that panels reverse US agency trade remedy determinations twice as often as US courts. Recent studies have eliminated case selection and other hypotheses as potential explanations for this divergence. In this article, Probit regressions show that case docket differences, such as type of import or litigant identity, also cannot account for this discrepancy. As NAFTA panels must apply the same law and standards of review as the US courts they replace, this divergence presents serious questions regarding US Congressional acquiescence to the operation of NAFTA panels and encourages discussion of the role …