Law Commons^™

Another Voice For The 'Dialogue': Federal Courts As A Litigation Course, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

The traditional course in "Federal Courts" - built on the model established by the great Hart and Wechsler casebook - focuses on issues of federalism, separation of powers, and institutional competence. That focus provides a powerful intellectual model for organizing the materials that make up the field of study, and it is hard to imagine anyone teaching a Federal Courts course today without drawing heavily on that model. But the traditional model is deficient in one important respect. Most of the students who take a Federal Courts course do so because they think it will help them to practice law …

Universal Jurisdiction As An International 'False Conflict' Of Laws, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This symposium Essay uses the private law notion of a "false conflict" of laws to develop a coherent and normatively sound legal framework for evaluating the exercise of universal jurisdiction by states in the international legal system. The Essay suggests that properly exercised, universal jurisdiction creates no conflict of laws among states because, as a matter of prescriptive jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction is never really extra-territorial, and thus never generates the possibility of conflicting, overlapping laws. Rather, universal jurisdiction comprises a comprehensive territorial jurisdiction, originating in a universally-applicable international law that covers the globe. Individual states may apply and enforce that …

How To Prevent Hard Cases From Making Bad Law: Bear Stearns, Delaware And The Strategic Use Of Comity, Marcel Kahan, Edward B. Rock

All Faculty Scholarship

The Bear Stearns/JP Morgan Chase merger placed Delaware between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the deal’s unprecedented deal protection measures – especially the 39.5% share exchange agreement – were probably invalid under current Delaware doctrine because they rendered the Bear Stearns shareholders’ approval rights entirely illusory. On the other hand, if a Delaware court were to enjoin a deal pushed by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury and arguably necessary to prevent a collapse of the international financial system, it would invite just the sort of federal intervention that would undermine Delaware’s role as the …

Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Sensible Pragmatism In Federal Jurisdictional Policy, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

This article, written as part of a symposium celebrating the work of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the occasion of her fifteenth year on the Supreme Court, examines the strain of sensible legal pragmatism that informs Justice Ginsburg's writing in the fields of Civil Procedure and Federal Jurisdiction. Taking as its point of departure the Supreme Court's decision in City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, in which Ginsburg dissented, the article develops an argument against strict textualism in federal jurisdictional analysis. In its place, the article urges a purposive mode of interpretation that approaches jurisdictional text with a …

Comity And Foreign Parallel Proceedings: A Reply To Black And Swan. Lloyd’S Underwriters V. Cominco Ltd., Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Lloyd's Underwriters v. Cominco Ltd., is a potentially seminal case, currently pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. The case involves the issue of whether Canadian courts should stay litigation in the face of duplicative foreign proceedings. This reply responds to Vaughan Black's and John Swan's comment on the Lloyd's case, which was published in volume 46 of the Canadian Business Law Journal.

The reply argues that although Black and Swan have important insights into judgment enforcement when competing, inconsistent decisions exist, their analysis too readily skips over the first-to-file rule and underestimates the costs of reactive litigation. Canadian courts …

Reclaiming International Law From Extraterritoriality, Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A fierce debate ensues among leading international law theorists that implicates the role of national courts in solving global challenges. On the one side are scholars who are critical of international law and its institutions. These scholars, often referred to as Sovereigntists, see international law as a threat to democratic sovereignty. On the other side are scholars who support international law as a key means of promoting human and environmental rights, as well as global peace and stability. These scholars are the 'new' Internationalists because they see non-traditional, non-state actors as appropriately enforcing international law at the sub-state level. The …

Territory, Territoriality, And The Resolution Of Jurisdictional Conflict, Hannah L. Buxbaum

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Foreign Officials And Sovereign Immunity In U.S. Courts, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.