U.S. Foreign Relations Law Posts
Book Review: The Restatement and Beyond: The Past, Present, and Future of U.S. Foreign Relations Law
This paper reviews “The Restatement and Beyond: The Past, Present, and Future of U.S. Foreign Relations Law,” by Paul B. Stephan and Sarah H. Cleveland.
The Restatement of the Law Fourth, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States: Selected Topics in Treaties, Jurisdiction, and Sovereign Immunity, which was published in 2018, has been receiving significant attention in federal and state courts.
A petition in Peter A. Chiejina and Piccol Nigeria Ltd v. Republic of Nigeria, currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is asking the court to consider the devaluation of Nigeria’s currency, citing the Restatement of the Law Fourth, the Foreign Relations Law of the United States.
Both the Third and Fourth Restatement of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, were cited by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in Lusik Usoyan v. Republic of Turkey.
This Article provides a roadmap for cases involving foreign official immunity in U.S. courts.
Recently, in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, No. 19-351 (Feb. 3, 2021), the U.S. Supreme Court cited the Second, Third, and Fourth Restatements of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States.
At least six lawsuits have been filed against China in U.S. federal courts seeking damages for deaths, injuries and economic losses caused by covid-19.
This article will discuss the recent French law on “legal analytics” (i.e. technology enabled profiling of judges).
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.