Jurisdiction Commons^™

Derailed By The D.C. Circuit: Getting Network Management Regulation Back On Track, Edward B. Mulligan V

Federal Communications Law Journal

As the Internet continues to play a more central role in the daily lives of Americans, concerns about how Internet service providers manage their networks have arisen. Responding to these concerns and recognizing the importance of maintaining the open and competitive nature of the Internet, the FCC has taken incremental steps to regulate network management practices. Perhaps the most significant of these steps was its August 2008 Memorandum Decision and Order in which the FCC condemned Comcast Corporation's network management practices as "discriminatory and arbitrary." In that Order, the FCC required that Comcast (1) adopt new practices that complied with …

Reconsidering Reprisals, Michael A. Newton

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The prohibition on the use of reprisals is widely regarded as one of the most sacrosanct statements of the jus in bello applicable to the conduct of modern hostilities. The textual formulations are stark and subject to no derogations. Supporters of the bright line ban describe it as a vital bulwark against barbarity. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the prohibition is absolute, despite the fact that the declarations of key states indicate residual ambiguity over the scope of permissible reprisals, particularly in the context of non-international armed conflicts. Reprisals are a recurring feature of …

Jurisdictional Discovery In United States Federal Courts, S. I. Strong

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Three Obstacles To The Promotion Of Corporate Social Responsibility By Means Of The Alien Tort Claims Act: The Sosa Court's Incoherent Conception Of The Law Of Nations, The "Purposive" Action Requirement For Aiding And Abetting, And The State Action Requirement For Primary Liability, David A. Dana, Michael Barsa

Faculty Working Papers

The ATCA could be a powerful tool to promote corporate CSR, especially in developing countries where local legal restraints are weak. But despite the good normative reasons why the ATCA should be used in this way, serious obstacles remain. The Supreme Court's ahistorical and incoherent formulation of the "law of nations" fails to promote the development of the ATCA in ways that would cover even serious environmental harm. Also, the federal courts' confused jurisprudence concerning aiding and abetting and state action creates too many loopholes through which egregious corporate behavior may slip unpunished. In order to overcome these obstacles, we …

An Empirical Examination Of Universal Jurisdiction For Piracy, Eugene Kontorovich, Steven Art

Faculty Working Papers

This Essay presents the first systematic empirical study of the incidence of universal jurisdiction prosecutions over an international crime. Using data on the number of piracies committed in a twelve year period (1998-2009) obtained from international agencies and maritime industry groups, we determine the percentage of acts of piracy where nations prosecuted under universal jurisdiction we determine the percentage of these cases where nations exercised UJ. Studies of the worldwide use of UJ over other crimes simply count how often UJ has been exercised, but do not attempt to determine the rate of prosecution.

We find that of all clearly …

There Is No Norm Of Intervention Or Non-Intervention In International Law, Anthony D'Amato

Faculty Working Papers

Comments on Prof. Jianming Shen's position that humanitarian intervention is unlawful under international law and that there is a principle of non-intervention in international law that is so powerful that it amounts to a jus cogens prohibition.

Interlocutory Review By Agreement Of The Parties: A Preliminary Analysis, James Pfander, Dave Pekarek-Krohn

Faculty Working Papers

Although the nineteenth century's final judgment rule no longer represents an absolute barrier to interlocutory appellate review, scholars disagree about what should take its place. Some favor a regime of discretionary interlocutory review, with power conferred on appellate courts to select issues that warrant intervention. Others reject discretionary review as a waste of appellate resources and call upon the rule makers to identify specific categories of non-final orders that always warrant review. While the Supreme Court's collateral order doctrine bears some similarity to this process of categorization, the Court may have called a halt to the judicial recognition of new …

Article Iii And The Scottish Enlightenment, James E. Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

Historically-minded scholars and jurists invariably turn to English law and precedents in attempting to recapture the legal world of the framers. Blackstone's famous Commentaries on the Laws of England offers a convenient reference for moderns looking backwards. Yet the generation that framed the Constitution often relied on other sources, including Scottish law and legal institutions. Indeed, the Scottish judicial system provided an important, but overlooked, model for the framing of Article III. Unlike the English system of overlapping jurisdiction, the Scottish judiciary featured a hierarchical, appellate-style judiciary, with one supreme court sitting at the top and an array of inferior …

Collateral Review Of Remand Orders: Reasserting The Supervisory Role Of The Supreme Court, James Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

Although some might consider the appellate review of remand orders as something of a jurisdictional backwater, recent developments suggest that the rules need attention. The Supreme Court has decided no fewer than four cases in the past few years and has failed to develop a persuasive framework. Indeed, one member of the Court, Justice Breyer, has invited "experts" to solve the problem.

In this essay, I suggest that the solution lies in the Court's own hands. Rather than proposing legislative or rulemaking solutions, I call on the Court to re-invigorate its supervisory powers and conduct direct review of district court …

Whose Dictionary Controls?: Recent Challenges To The Term "Investment" In Icsid Arbirtration, Joseph M. Boddicker

American University International Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sovereign Litigants: Native American Nations In Court, Catherine T. Struve

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

National Jurisdiction And Global Business Networks (Earl A. Snyder Lecture In International Law), Hannah Buxbaum

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Earl A. Snyder Lecture in International Law, November 1, 2007, Lauterpacht Centre for International Research, University of Cambridge.

Duplicative Foreign Litigation, Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

What should a court do when a lawsuit involving the same parties and the same issues is already pending in the court of another country? With the growth of transnational litigation, the issue of reactive, duplicative proceedings - and the waste inherent in such duplication - becomes a more common problem. The future does not promise change. In a modern, globalized world, litigants are increasingly tempted to forum shop among countries to find courts and law more favorably inclined to them than their opponents.

The federal courts, however, do not yet have a coherent response to the problem. They apply …

Significance Of The Fujimori Trial, Juan E. Mendez

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Assessing The Impact Of Federal Law On Public Health Preparedness, Lindsay Wiley, Ben Berkman, Susan C. Kim

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the territorial jurisdiction of federal district courts to that of the courts of their host states.T his limitation is a voluntary rather than obligatory restriction, given district courts' status as courts of the national sovereign. Although there are sound policy reasons for limiting the jurisdictional reach of our federal courts in this manner, the limitation delivers little benefit from a judicial administration or even a fairness perspective, and ultimately costs more to implement than is gained in return. The rule should be amended to provide that district courts have personal …

Federal Preemption: A Roadmap For The Application Of Tribal Law In State Courts, Jackie Gardina

American Indian Law Review

This article contends that state courts are not necessarily free to apply state law when the courts are exercising concurrent adjudicative jurisdiction with tribal courts. Instead, Indian law principles of preemption direct state courts to apply tribal law in certain cases. A guiding principle emerges from the preemption analysis: if a tribe has legislative jurisdication over the dispute, tribal law must ordinarily be applied. In these instances, a state's laws, including its choice-of-law rules, are preempted by federal common law because their application interferes with the federal government's and the tribes' interest in promoting tribal self-government, including the tribes' ability …

Cyber-Territoriality, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Domain And The Court, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Dark Side Of Territoriality, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Human Rights And Military Decisions: Counterinsurgency And Trends In The Law Of, Dan E. Stigall, Christopher L. Blakesley, Chris Jenks

Scholarly Works

The past several decades have seen a Copernican shift in the paradigm of armed conflict, which the traditional Law of International Armed Conflict (LOIAC) canon has not fully matched. Standing out in stark relief against the backdrop of relative inactivity in LOIAC, is the surfeit of activity in the field of international human rights law, which has become a dramatic new force in the ancient realm of international law. Human rights law, heretofore not formally part of the traditional juridico-military calculus, has gained ever increasing salience in that calculus. Indeed, human rights law has ramified in such a manner that …

From The Chair, Lela P. Love

Articles

No abstract provided.

Slides: Indian Water Rights, Robert T. Anderson

Western Water Law, Policy and Management: Ripples, Currents, and New Channels for Inquiry (Martz Summer Conference, June 3-5)

Presenter: Robert T. Anderson, Native American Law Center, University of Washington Law School

19 slides

The Partially Prudential Doctrine Of Mootness, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

The conventional understanding of mootness doctrine is that it operates as a mandatory bar to federal court jurisdiction, derived from the "cases or controversies" clause of the United States Constitution, Article III. In two crucial respects, however, this Constitutional model - which was first adopted by the Supreme Court less than 45 years ago - fails to account for the manner in which courts actually address contentions of mootness. First, the commonly-applied exceptions to the mootness bar are not derived from the "cases or controversies" clause and cannot be reconciled with the Constitutional account of mootness. Second, courts regularly consider …

Recent Jurisdiction Developments In The New York Court Of Appeals, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article will discuss recent developments in long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR section 302 and two related New York Court of Appeals decisions. Specifically, the article will address Fischbarg v. Doucet, which presents the court's expansive view of long-arm jurisdiction in light of recent technological developments, and Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, in which the court's decision to limit long-arm jurisdiction was rejected by subsequent legislation, signaling a more expansive application of CPLR 302 in the future.

The "Define And Punish" Clause And The Limit Of Universal Jurisdiction, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This Article examines whether the "Define and Punish" clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to criminalize foreign conduct unconnected to the United States. Answering this question requires exploring the Constitution's "Piracies and Felonies" provision. While it is hard to believe this can still be said of any constitutional provision, no previous work has examined the scope of the "Piracies and Felonies" powers. Yet the importance of this inquiry is more than academic. Despite its obscurity, the Piracies and Felonies power is the purported Art. I basis for a statute currently in force, which represents Congress's most aggressive use of universal …

The Push To Criminalize Aggression: Something Lost Amid The Gains?, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but the Rome Statute fails to define the crime. A Special Work- ing Group on the Crime of Aggression, however, has made considerable progress in developing a definition. The consensus that has emerged favors a narrow definition. Three characteristics animate this consensus: (1) that state action is central to the crime; (2) that acts of aggression involve inter- state armed conflict; and (3) that criminal responsibility attaches only to very top political or military leaders. This Article normatively challenges this consensus. I argue that expanding the scope of the …

Originalism And The Difficulties Of History In Foreign Affairs, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This Article spotlights some of the idiosyncratic features of admiralty law at the time of the founding. These features pose challenges for applying the original understanding of the Constitution to contemporary questions of foreign relations. Federal admiralty courts were unusual creatures by Article III standards. They sat as international tribunals applying international and foreign law, freely hearing cases that implicated sensitive questions of foreign policy, and liberally exercising universal jurisdiction over disputes solely between foreigners. However, these powers did not arise out of the basic features of Article III, but rather from a felt need to opt into the preexisting …

A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

In Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 1941, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of realignment, requiring federal courts to examine the issues in dispute and realign each party as plaintiff or defendant if necessary. Due to the complete diversity requirement, realignment gave the federal courts the ability to both create and destroy diversity jurisdiction. Since 1941, the federal courts have struggled to interpret the central holding in Indianapolis, and have created several competing "tests" for realignment. This confusion has made the doctrine of realignment unworkable. Realignment-along with each of the present tests-encourages jurisdictional abuses by forcing the federal courts to …

On The Evolution Of The Law Of International Sea Piracy: How Property Trumped Human Rights, The Environment And The Sovereign Rights Of States In The Areas Of The Creation And Enforcement Of Jurisdiction, Leticia M. Diaz, Barry Hart Dubner

Barry Law Review

This article examines the statistics concerning piratical incidents occurring in the year 2008 and their impact on the world economy. This article also reviews the total scope of sea piracy worldwide with regard to the number and type of incidents thereof, because Somalia is not the only place in the world where sea piracy occurs. Finally, this article analyzes the history of prescribing and enforcing a jurisdiction regarding the international law of sea piracy.