AbstractWhile overshadowed by rulings concerning the rights of detainees, executive power and judicial review in the "war on terror," the Supreme Court recently issued three surprisingly significant decisions on international law. These cases show a realistic reaffirmation by the Supreme Court of international law's central importance to U.S. jurisprudence, the rejection of a post-war conservative belittlement as well as an apparent disdain for it, and a prudent determination of Congressional intent and judicial precedent in global commerce. While dealing with quite technical issues of the federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction in alien torts, sovereign immunity and antitrust, these three decisions suggest a return to pragmatism by the Supreme Court. Taken together they provide a sensible balancing of foreign policy concerns within the context of the separation of powers and foreign relations. They also serve as a counterweight to the political degradation of international law that started with the Reagan-Bush era and continued through the current Bush administration.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
An Ethical Evaluation of the Supreme Court Decision Regarding ERISA Interpretation.Kristin Lefebvre - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):327-334.
The United State Supreme Court and Health Law: The Year in Review: The Supreme Court Federalizes Managed Care Liability.Theodore W. Ruger - 2004 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (3):528-531.
The Constitutional Court's Decision in the Dispute Between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission: Banishing Judicial Accountability?Simon Butt - unknown
Does Philosophy Deserve a Place at the Supreme Court?Thom Brooks - 2003 - Rutgers Law Record 27 (1):1-17.