U.S. Foreign Relations Law Posts
In a dissenting opinion delivered in Hernández v. Mesa, No. 17-1678 (February 25, 2020), U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted Restatement of the Law Third, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 402 and Restatement of the Law Second, Conflict of Laws § 145, Comment e.
In a recent case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia cited the Restatement of the Law Fourth, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, in holding that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not err in exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes committed by foreign nationals against U.S. law-enforcement officers on foreign soil.
Cities, or more particularly global cities, increasingly channel foreign relations that we think of belonging to nation–states. But one should not think that this is an entirely good thing, leading us towards enlightened progress and away from injustice. The foreign relations law that cities make has a dark side.
In June 2019, President Donald Trump suggested the European Union’s (EU) suits against certain American companies, such as Facebook and Google, were inappropriate legal actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently cited Restatement of the Law Fourth, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 481 and Restatement of the Law Second, Conflict of Laws § 98.
For most of the past century, those who followed foreign relations law believed that federal law, including that made by the federal courts in the absence of legislation and treaties, should govern the field. Anything else would burden political and economic ties with the rest of the world and stymie efforts to adapt the law to a rapidly changing international environment.
At UVA Law’s 31st Sokol Colloquium, Notre Dame Law professor A.J. Bellia and UVA Law professors Paul Stephan and John Harrison discussed international law and the judiciary in a panel moderated by UVA Law professor Saikrishna Prakash.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Jam v. International Finance Corp., No. 17-1011 (Feb. 27, 2019) that, under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA), international organizations are entitled to the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments enjoy today—which generally does not extend to commercial activities—rather than to the virtually absolute immunity that foreign governments enjoyed when the IOIA was originally enacted.
At UVA Law’s 31st Sokol Colloquium, Duke law professor Ralf Michaels, Indiana University law professor Austen Parrish, Fordham law professor Thomas Lee and UC Hastings law professor Chimène Keitner discussed limits on jurisdiction in international law with moderator and UVA law professor Anne Woolhandler.
Watch video from UVA Law’s 31st Sokol Colloquium, where Rutgers law professor Beth Stephens, Georgetown law professor David Stewart and University of Michigan law professor Kristina Daugirdas discussed sovereign immunity with moderator and United Kingdom Court of Appeals Lord Justice (ret.) Sir Jack Beatson. During the colloquium, scholars, jurists and practitioners discussed ALI’s Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States.