User:Howard C. Berkowitz/J
Template:TOC-right Variously called the judicialization of international relations,[1] the judicialization of international politics,[2] or, as a title of discussion, Foreign Law, Domestic Courts, and World Politics,[3] is a concern that evolving legal approaches to international conflict are challenges to national sovereignty and even democratic processes within nations. More than one concept is involved here, such as the use of foreign or international law within domestic judicial systems, as well as transnational systems, especially those that developed in Europe after the Second World War.
U.S. issues
In 1997, Jack Goldsmith wrote several papers on the relationships among international law, politics, and U.S. policy. One questioned the "modern position" that customary international law has the status of U.S. federal statutes. [4] He and Curtis Bradley elaborated that the U.S. courts should not allow international humanitarian law, in particular, to supercede the decisions of the Legislative and Executive Branches of the U.S. government. [5]
References
- ↑ Jack Goldsmith (2007), The Terror Presidency, W.W. Norton, p. 21
- ↑ Cesare P.R. Romano (2006), "From the Consensual to the Compulsory Paradigm in International Adjudication: Elements for a Theory of Consent", New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers (no. 20)
- ↑ Christopher A. Whytock (March 14, 2006), Foreign Law, Domestic Courts, and World Politics
- ↑ Goldsmith, Jack Landman & Curtis Bradley (1997), "Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position", Harvard Law Review 110: 815
- ↑ Goldsmith, Jack Landman & Curtis Bradley (1997), "The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation", Fordham Law Review 66: 319