Law Commons^™

Not Just Doctrine: The True Motivation For Federal Incorporation And International Human Rights Litigation, Daniel Abebe

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Article challenges the universalist theory of international law upon which federal incorporation of CIL and international human rights litigation rely. It unpacks the international relations (IR) theory paradigms that support the universalist theory, and discusses a competing theory that views state compliance with international law as a function of national self-interest. Working from this perspective, it proposes a framework to evaluate the wisdom of federal incorporation of CIL and the wisdom of international human rights litigation. The framework suggests that federal incorporation of CIL generates sovereignty costs for the United States, and that international human rights litigation complicates the …

Judicial Review Of Arbitration Awards In The Fifth Circuit., Christopher D. Kratovil

St. Mary's Law Journal

In the wake of a defeat in arbitration, trial lawyers seek appellate counsel looking for some method to escape the arbitrator’s decision. Most leave such offices disappointed after having been informed arbitration awards will be set aside by the courts “only in very unusual circumstances.” The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) fully endorses arbitration and liberally encourages its use as an alternative to traditional litigation. Consistent with Congress’ focus on speed, efficiency, and cost reduction, a critical goal of arbitration is to establish “finality” at the earliest possible point. Unfortunately, early finality is antithetical to robust appellate proceedings. Yet, the FAA …

Process Theory, Majoritarianism, And The Original Understanding, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Radicals in Robes, Cass Sunstein posits that there are four primary approaches to constitutional interpretation: perfectionism, majoritarianism, minimalism, and fundamentalism.' The purpose of his eloquent and compelling book is twofold: Sunstein argues for minimalism, an approach that he contends makes most sense for America today; and with even greater force, Sunstein argues against fundamentalism, which he finds "wrong, dangerous, radical, and occasionally hypocritical."' The "Radicals in Robes" who are the targets of Sunstein's book are judges who embrace fundamentalism, which, in his view, embodies "the views of the extreme wing of [the] Republican Party."'

In Securing Constitutional Democracy: The …