Jurisdiction Commons^™

A Defense Of Structural Injunctive Remedies In South African Law, Danielle E. Hirsch

ExpressO

This Article argues that the use of structural injunction remedies by South African courts is appropriate, and, in light of demonstrated government inaction, often necessary in order to give meaning to the protection of socio-economic rights, which is mandated by their Constitution. The Article draws upon numerous United States judicial decisions where structural injunctions have been successfully implemented to address systemic institutional inaction and violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution. In numerous instances, the South African government has not acted to effectively give meaning to the socio-economic rights which were broadly declared …

Enforcing Foreign Summary/Default Judgments: The Damoclean Sword Hanging Over Pro Se Canadian Corporate Defendants? Case Comment On U.S.A. V. Shield Development, Antonin I. Pribetic

ExpressO

Following the 2003 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Beals v. Saldanha, where the “real and substantial connection” test is otherwise met (i.e. consent-based jurisdiction, presence-based jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction) the only available defences to a domestic defendant seeking to have a Canadian court refuse enforcement of a foreign judgment are fraud, public policy and natural justice. The 2005 Ontario decision in United States of America v. Shield Development Co., presents an opportunity to critically analyze the defence of natural justice through a juxtaposition of American and Canadian procedural law. The thesis is that procedural justice mandates that “form follow …

An Empirical Assessment Of Federal Question Jurisdiction, Jack F. Preis

ExpressO

For ages, judges and legal academics have claimed that federal question jurisdiction has three purposes: to provide litigants with a judge experienced in federal law, to protect litigants from state court hostility toward federal claims and to preserve uniformity in federal law. Although one could fill a small library with books and articles endorsing this conception of federal question jurisdiction, one would be hard-pressed to find a single article testing these rationales empirically.

This Article seeks to be the first such piece of scholarship. Based on a study of thousands of state court cases across fifteen different states, it first …

Standing For Extraterritoriality: Defining The Empagran Exception, Max Huffman

ExpressO

Efforts by private plaintiffs to enforce the U.S. antitrust laws extraterritorially have become an enormous industry. A reflection of the challenges facing federal courts in this global age, F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A. (Empagran) held the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA) precluded the assertion by U.S. courts of jurisdiction over claims by foreign plaintiffs alleging harm felt in wholly foreign commerce.

Empagran left an exception that undermines its general rule. Plaintiffs able sufficiently to show “the anticompetitive conduct’s domestic effects were linked to their foreign harm” are excepted from the preclusion. This is the “Empagran exception.” …

American Military Justice And International Criminal Court Complementarity: The Case Of Ucmj Article 60, Allen J. Dickerson

ExpressO

Although the American military is effectively one of the most potent of international institutions, discussions of its regulation have been oddly domestic. The court-martial – the single most important institution for disciplining military forces, preventing atrocities and punishing offenders – has seen its jurisdiction and procedures hotly debated, but most often by those in uniform or individuals interested in domestic military policy. This paper aims to internationalize the discussion, recognizing that the discipline of American military forces is of major concern to both international law and U.S. foreign policy. By exploring the interaction between a major innovation in international law …

Jurisdictional Fact, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

What kind of factual showing must the plaintiff make in order to establish, say, personal jurisdiction? While that question may seem simple enough, real difficulties in regard to the standard of proof arise when there is a similarity of the facts entailed in the jurisdictional determination and those on the merits. Surely, the plaintiff has to do more than allege that the defendant is the author of state-directed acts or omissions. Yet, almost as surely, the plaintiff should not have to prove the cause of action in order to establish jurisdiction. The plaintiff thus must have to show something between …

“Thinking Globally, Acting Locally”: Recent Trends In The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In Canada, Antonin I. Pribetic

ExpressO

The continuing evolution of the “real and substantial connection” test for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments remains a topic of immediate interest. Since the landmark decision in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, and more recently in Beals v. Saldanha, Canadian jurisprudence for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has been dominated by judicial and legislative unilateralism: the establishment of a domestically imposed standard (the lex fori) striving towards national uniformity informed by private international law (or conflict of laws) principles. While the “real and substantial connection” test for jurisdiction simpliciter provides a flexible analytical framework for …

Tough Love: The Dramatic Birth And Looming Demise Of Unclos Property Law (And What Is To Be Done About It), Peter S. Prows

ExpressO

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) represents the culmination of thousands of years of international relations, conflict, and now nearly universal adherence to an enduring order for ocean space that is the most significant achievement for international law since the UN Charter. UNCLOS establishes international property law erga omnes that, by legal and political necessity, required a bargained consensus to be effective. This bargain, in essence, provided coastal States with extended but limited jurisdictions, while ensuring that the seabed and its mineral resources beyond were the “common heritage of mankind” that would peaceably and …

Establishing A Precedent In Uganda: The Legitimacy Of National Amnesties Under The Icc, Robin B. Murphy

ExpressO

After 14 years of unconscionable wrath against local civilians, including enforced recruitment of thousands of child soldiers, the rebel group The Lord’s Resistance Army (“LRA”) was offered amnesty by the Ugandan government in 2000. However, as the conflict continued unabated, the Ugandan government, for the first time in the history of the Court, referred its case to the International Criminal Court (“ICC”). The ICC Prosecutor announced the beginning of an investigation and issued warrants for seven top LRA officers in October of 2005. The potential ICC prosecution raises many questions about the jurisdiction of the new court, including whether the …

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Consistent “Deeming”: A Cohesive Construction Of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 In Cases Involving International Corporations And Permanent-Resident Aliens., Rory M. Ryan

ExpressO

Two categories of alienage-jurisdiction cases have proven troublesome: cases involving permanent-resident aliens and cases involving international corporations. Jurisdiction in these categories depends upon the construction of 28 U.S.C. § 1332’s deeming provisions. The permanent-resident deeming provision and the corporate deeming provision operate uncontroversially to remove certain cases from federal jurisdiction, but controversy exists as to what extent they create jurisdiction that did not exist before the amendments that added the deeming provisions. The results and analytical approaches in these categories have varied, and the resulting confusion is unsatisfactory. The cases in this area are plagued by a structural flaw—while framing …

The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act And Its Implications For Private Military Companies, Dustin M. Tipling

ExpressO

Private Military Companies (PMCs) are civilian staffed corporations that provide military (and law enforcement) services, logistics, and support under contract to a government both inside and outside the country’s borders. Prior to Congress passing the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction to prosecute civilians accompanying United States’ Armed Forces overseas. This article will specifically address how the United States exercises jurisdiction and prosecutes the civilian employees of PMCs in United States courts for crimes they have committed in foreign countries while working under contract to the United States government.

Saddam Hussein's Trial In Iraq: Fairness, Legitimacy & Alternatives, A Legal Analysis, Christian Eckart

Cornell Law School J.D. Student Research Papers

The paper focuses on Saddam Hussein’s trial in front of the Iraqi High Criminal Court in Baghdad. After providing an overview of the facts surrounding the court’s installation, the applicable international law is identified and the fairness and legitimacy of the current proceedings are analyzed. The paper finishes by considering whether the trial should be relocated and addresses alternative venues that could have been chosen to prosecute Iraq’s ex-dictator.

The Exercise Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Some Foreign State Instrumentalities Must Be Consistent With Due Process, Gosia Spangenberg

Washington Law Review

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause places limitations on courts' judicial power. Due process concerns arise when a forum exercises personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for actions carried on outside the forum's territory. Those concerns are alleviated when the defendant has adequate "minimum contacts" with the forum. Although foreign states are presumed to be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants U.S. courts jurisdiction over foreign states under certain circumstances. Several FSIA exceptions to foreign state immunity extend to conduct that occurs outside of the U.S. Moreover, the jurisdictional nexus requirements associated …

Sausage-Making, Pigs' Ears, And Congressional Expansions Of Federal Jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil V. Allapattah And Its Lessons For The Class Action Fairness Act, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The year 2005 witnessed two watershed developments in federal jurisdiction: the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. and the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Allapattah and CAFA raise the same fundamental question: how should courts interpret a statute whose text would expand federal jurisdiction far beyond what Congress apparently intended? In Allapattah, the Court confronted this question in resolving an aspect of the supplemental jurisdiction statute that had deeply divided both the judiciary and academia. CAFA's expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions will require courts to struggle with this question …

The Puzzle Of State Constitutions, Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In a series of groundbreaking articles published over the past fifteen years, James Gardner has led the charge to make state constitutionalism a part of the constitutional law discussion more generally. His new book, Interpreting State Constitutions: A Jurisprudence of Function in a Federal System, steps beyond his study of specific issues in state constitutionalism to lay out an ambitious theory about how state constitutions should be interpreted based on their function within a federal system. Gardner's book is a significant scholarly effort to take state constitutions seriously, in a way that transcends any one jurisdiction or constitutional provision. Gardner's …

On Law, Wars, And Mercenaries: The Case For Courts-Martial Jurisdiction Over Civilian Contractor Misconduct In Iraq, Wm. C. Peters

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sosa Decision, Jeffrey P. Saxon

ExpressO

The manner in which international law is applied by the domestic courts of the United States has been an issue without any definitive boundaries since 1789. It is unclear as to the type and extent of international law that could be brought as a cause of action inside the United States for events that occurred outside its borders. The landmark case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, decided by the Supreme Court in 2004, has changed the landscape in this area. This decision will alter the field of domestic enforcement of international law by making it exceedingly difficult for an non-citizen to …

The Application Of Federal Common Law To Overcome Conflicting State Laws In The Supplemental Disgorgement Proceedings Of An Sec Appointed Receiver, Gauhar Naseem

ExpressO

In spite of the Erie doctrine, the application of federal common law has survived to overcome conflicting state laws in diversity actions where a federal law, interest or function is implicated. A federal court’s authority to substantively implement a federal common law rule over state law is clearest when the party to the action is a federal entity, namely an agency of the U.S. Government deriving its authority from the Constitution or some source of federal law. Analyzing such authority becomes more difficult in circumstances where parties to a diversity lawsuit are private citizens (not necessarily possessing any direct federal …

Brand X And The Wireline Broadband Report And Order: The Beginning Of The End Of The Distinction Between Title I And Title Ii Services, J. Steven Rich

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Article traces the development of the FCC's distinction between "telecommunications services" subject to common carrier services under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act and "information services" regulated under Title I of the Act from the Computer Inquiry line of cases through the Brand X decision and recent Wireline Broadband Report and Order. The Author pays particular attention to the Brand X decision and the FCC's Wireline Broadband Order and its implications, suggesting that the Order may be subject to reversal when it is challenged in court and proposing how the Commission might react to a reversal. The Author …

Prevalence Of Substantive Consolidation In Large Bankruptcies From 2000 To 2004: Preliminary Results, William H. Widen

Articles

No abstract provided.

Justice & Foreign Affairs: Taking The European Neighbourhood Partner Countries To The European Court Of Justice, Lior Zemer, Sharon Pardo

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article argues that the European Union (EU) should extend the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to cover disputes arising from agreements with Neighborhood Partner Countries (NPC) under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). This extension is essential for upholding the EU's constitutional principles, ensuring judicial review, and maintaining the coherence of EU external relations. The authors advocate for the ECJ as the most suitable judicial forum to address these disputes, emphasizing its role in reinforcing the EU's legal identity and capacity building.

The Role Of International Arbitrators, Susan Franck

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

With the advent of the global economy, arbitration has become the preferred mechanism for resolving international disputes. Today international arbitrators resolve billions of dollars worth of disputes.' Arbitration has taken on such prominence in the international context that commentators express "little doubt that arbitration is now the first-choice method of binding dispute resolution" and has "largely taken over litigation."'

United States' Moral Authority Undermined: The Foreign Affairs Costs Of Abusive Detentions, Jeffrey K. Cassin

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The note argues that the United States' engagement in abusive detentions, notably at Guantanamo Bay and in cases like *Hamdi v. Rumsfeld* and Padilla, has severely eroded its moral authority on the global stage. These practices, including indefinite detentions and the denial of due process, contradict U.S. rhetoric on human rights, undermining its credibility and strategic influence. The Supreme Court's rulings in Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld emphasize the necessity of judicial review, yet the U.S. continues to face criticism for hypocrisy, diminishing its ability to promote democracy and human rights internationally.

Exorbitant Jurisdiction, Kevin M. Clermont, John R.B. Palmer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Exorbitant territorial jurisdiction in civil cases comprises those classes of jurisdiction, although exercised validly under a country's rules, that nonetheless are unfair to the defendant because of a lack of significant connection between the sovereign and either the parties or the dispute. The United States, France, and most of the rest of the world exercise a good deal of exorbitant jurisdiction so defined. In the United States, an emphasis on power derived from territoriality has led to jurisdictional restraint in some respects, but has also allowed general jurisdiction based solely on transient physical presence, the attachment of property, or extensive …

Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Revised Analysis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Personal jurisdiction doctrine as articulated by the Supreme Court is in disarray. As a constitutional doctrine whose contours remain imprecise, the law of personal jurisdiction has generated confusion, unpredictability, and extensive satellite litigation over what should be an uncomplicated preliminary issue. Many commentators have long lamented these defects, making suggestions for how the doctrine could be improved. Although many of these proposals have had much to offer, they generally have failed to articulate (or adequately justify or explain) a simple and sound approach to jurisdiction that the Supreme Court can embrace. This Article revises the law of personal jurisdiction by …

Perpetuities Or Taxes? Explaining The Rise Of The Perpetual Trust, Max M. Schanzenbach, Robert H. Sitkoff

Cardozo Law Review

By abolishing the Rule Against Perpetuities, twenty-one states have validated perpetual trusts. The prevailing view among scholars is that enactment of the generation skipping transfer (GST) tax in 1986 prompted the movement to abolish the Rule by conferring a salient tax advantage on long-term trusts. However, an alternate view holds that demand for perpetual trusts stems from donors' preference for control independent of tax considerations. Proponents of both views have adduced supporting anecdotal evidence. Using state-level panel data on trust assets prior to the adoption of the GST tax, we examine whether a state's abolition of the Rule gave the …

Multi-Tiered Marriage: Ideas And Influences From New York And Louisiana To The International Community, Joel A. Nichols

ExpressO

This Article contends that American society needs to hold a genuine discussion about alternatives to current conceptions of marriage and family law jurisdiction. Specifically, the Article suggests that the civil government should consider ceding some of its jurisdictional authority over marriage and divorce law to religious communities that are competent and capable of adjudicating the marital rites and rights of their respective adherents. There is historical precedent and preliminary movement toward this end -- both within and without the United States -- which might serve as the framework for further discussions.

Within the United States, the relatively new covenant marriage …

The Action Bias In American Law: Internet Jurisdiction And The Triumph Of Zippo Dot Com, Richard Greenstein

ExpressO

American law reflects the stories we tell ourselves about who we are as a nation. To illustrate the effect of America’s stories on the law, I identify and describe in this essay a particular characteristic of American law: an “action bias” – a propensity to bestow disproportionately greater legal significance upon affirmative acts than on failures to act – and I argue that this bias reflects, in turn, a powerful myth at the core of the self-image of the United States, a myth I call the “Immigrant’s Tale.”

To illustrate this thesis, I give a number of instances of the …

How Do You Take Your Multi-State, Class-Action Litigation? One Lump Or Two?, Daniel R. Karon

ExpressO

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which essentially federalizes all multi-state class-action cases, has introduced the class-action bar, and necessarily the judiciary, to myriad substantive and procedural issues never before envisioned in class-action litigation’s history. While some of these issues have already surfaced, many others haven’t but will as newly federalized multi-state class-action lawsuits move through litigation to the class certification stage. A major and unavoidable issue involves whether federal judges, when deciding multi-state claims’ class certification under Federal Rule 23, may consider well-developed, state class-action jurisprudence applying a single state’s substantive law or whether doing so violates the …