The substantive law of judgments recognition in the United States has evolved from federal common law, found in a seminal Supreme Court opinion, to primary reliance on state law in both state and federal courts. While state law often is found in a local version of a uniform act, this has not brought about true uniformity, and significant discrepancies exist among the states. These discrepancies in judgments recognition law, combined with a common policy on the circulation of internal judgments under the United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, have created opportunities for forum shopping and litigation strategies that result in both inequity of result and inefficiency of judicial process. These inefficiencies are fueled by differences regarding (1) substantive rules regarding the recognition of judgments, (2) requirements for personal and quasi in rem jurisdiction when a judgment recognition action is brought (recognition jurisdiction) and (3) the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in judgments (and arbitral award) recognition cases. Recent cases demonstrate the need for a return to a single, federal legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
The Outer Limits of Adequate Reparations for Breaches of Non-Expropriation Investment Treaty Provisions: Choice and Proportionality in ChorzòwBy: Diane A. Desierto
Is compensations always the appropriate form of reparations when States breach non-expropriation provisions of their investment treaties? If so, what is the authoritative methodology for determining the quantum of compensation, when the non-expropriation investment treaty standard breached is silent on the issue of compensation for these kinds of treaty breaches?
Beyond States and Non-State Actors: The Role of State-Empowered Entities in the Making and Shaping of International LawBy: Sandesh Sivakumaran
Traditionally, the actors in the international legal system are divided into States and non-state actors; and States are considered to be the ones that make and shape international law. By contrast, this Article argues that there is a third category of actors, namely state-empowered entities, which have been empowered by States to make and shape international law. These entities are not States, but due to their empowerment by States, they are also not non-state actors. Accordingly, they constitute a category in and of themselves.
This Article explores the undertheorized and understudied phenomenon of doubly uncooperative federalism. While most commentary examining the behavior of U.S. states with respect to treaty regimes focuses on cooperative behavior—that is, states that aid in the implementation of duly ratified treaties, or even aid in the implementation of treaties that the federal government has yet to ratify—this Article focuses on settings of doubly uncooperative federalism.
This Article is the first to analyze the concept of queues (or temporal waiting lines or lists) and their ambivalent, interdependent relation with rights. After showing the conceptual tension between rights and queues, the Article argues that queues and “queue talk” present a unique challenge to rights and “rights talk.”
A renewed effort is required to reform India’s civil aviation regulatory system based on the CAAI Act or an improved alternative. At the very least, legislative action is required to build a legal framework to support the rising flight path of India’s economy.
The CFIUS process typically occurs privately and opaquely, but Ralls Corporation brought a legal challenge in federal courts resulting from an unfavorable ruling. Though full resolution did not ultimately occur, the first and only CFIUS suit in history opened the door for future litigation and substantially strengthened investors’ rights.
Corporate governance literature usually refers to enforcement superiority to explain the premium that foreign firms enjoy when cross-listing in U.S. stock exchanges. This Article casts doubt on this hypothesis by analyzing two comparative case studies of private and public enforcement actions taken against securities fraud in the United States and in Brazil. The case studies show that U.S. enforcement was superior in terms of private shareholder financial recovery but inferior when it came to public discipline and out-of-pocket liability costs for corporate actors.
This Article identifies an emerging regime complex in the field of international criminal law and analyzes the development of the regional criminal court to the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. This Article discusses how the International Criminal Court’s institutional crisis created a space for regional innovation. It finds that regime complexes can form not only due to strategic inconsistencies as discussed in the literature, but also because of the influence of regional integration.
This Article analyzes state communications to the United Nations Security Council during episodes of serious interstate conflict. I hypothesize that overall state communications should have increased after the Cold War; that states should be advancing more diverse legal justifications for their uses of force; and that states should be focusing more on the jus in bello than during the Cold War. An analysis of several hundred state communications drawn from a fifty-year period provides only limited support for these hypotheses. Patterns in state justifications to the Security Council have not changed markedly, and states remain overwhelmingly focused on self-defense as a legal justification.