U.S. Foreign Relations Law Posts
A reexamination of this Restatement began in October 2012. When the Council approved the project, it decided not to launch a full revision of the Restatement Third at that time. Instead, it limited the scope of the project to three areas, with limitations.
Courts across the country have already begun citing to the Restatement Fourth’s Tentative Drafts on Jurisdiction, Sovereign Immunity, and Treaties. Here is a list of citations.
A lawsuit accusing the Saudi Arabian government of complicity in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and seeking billions of dollars in damages, can go forward, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Foreign relations law focuses on the domestic institutions that conduct a state’s relations with foreign actors, whether states, international organizations, or foreign persons. One of its tasks is to intervene between international and domestic law.
Signed into law in January, the new law relates to foreign judgments (except for taxes, fines, or domestic relations) and protects against monetary judgments entered in nations whose courts fail to provide due process.
Reversing the District Court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals cited the Restatement of the Law Fourth, The Foreign Relation Law of the United States in its discussion about currency conversion in federal court.
We have a new draft paper, forthcoming in the Harvard Law Review, on how extensively the president has come to control international law for the United States, and what, if anything, should be done about it. As we explain at the end of this post, one of the central questions implicated by the paper is: Does Congress care?
Some sixteen years ago, on the occasion of one of many symposia on the possibility of a new Restatement of Conflict of Laws to replace the much derided Second Restatement, Mathias Reimann suggested that a new Restatement should focus on the requirements of what he called “the international age.” Conflict of laws is increasingly international, he pointed out.
Treating internal U.S. conflicts and international conflicts law the same, without distinguishing between them, has always puzzled non-U.S. lawyers and scholars. And nowhere is the question of whether domestic and international conflicts should be treated the same more pressing than in the current work of The American Law Institute.
The essay describes the Fourth Restatement’s division of jurisdiction into the three categories of jurisdiction to prescribe, jurisdiction to adjudicate, and jurisdiction to enforce. It covers the principal developments in each category since publication of the Third Restatement in 1987, including the revival of the presumption against extraterritoriality.