Chayes, Ehrlich, Lowenfeld: International Legal Process: Materials for an Introductory Course

A Review of International Legal Process: Materials for an Introductory Course (2 vols. with supp.) by Abram Chayes, Thomas Ehrlich, and Andreas Lowenfel

Reforming the State from Afar: Structural Reform Litigation at the Human Rights Courts

During the 1950s and 1960s, landmark rulings ordering school desegregation, prison reform, and other structural changes transformed civil litigation in the United States. The most striking feature of the new model of litigation, Abram Chayes argued, was the metamorphosis of the judge into a creator and manager of complex forms of ongoing relief, which have widespread effects on persons not before the court and require the judge\u27s continuing involvement in administration and implementation. \u27 In structural reform litigation cases, courts issue complex equitable remedies, and then remain seized of the matter until the remedies are implemented, with judges guiding and monitoring-at times in great detail-the creation or transformation of state bureaucracies

\u3cem\u3eRonald V. Dellums v. George Bush\u3c/em\u3e (D.D.C. 1990): Memorandum \u3cem\u3eAmicus Curiae\u3c/em\u3e of Law Professors

This joint memorandum is submitted to the court hearing Dellums v. Bush. This amicus brief advocates that the President may not order American armed forces to make war without consultation with and approval by Congress. The brief also argues that the case is justiciable

No Final Victories: The Incompleteness of Equity’s Triumph in Federal Public Law

Prominent areas in which the US Supreme Court has denied equitable relief are examined, demonstrating the limited nature of equity\u27s triumph in federal public law. The rationale behind the trend away from equity in such decisions is discussed

Ted Stein: A Personal Tribute

Ted Stein was my student, colleague, collaborator, and friend. He was among the most impressive of the younger American scholars in the field of international law. I remember him as a student, hardly a decade ago. Like many entering law students, then and now, with undergraduate backgrounds in international relations, he professed an interest in international law. Usually that means an interest in being Secretary of State, and it fades quickly as the process of professional socialization takes over. Not for Ted. His interest was a commitment that led him first to an editorial position on the Harvard International Law Journal, then to a term in the State Department\u27s Office of Legal Adviser, and ultimately to what should have been a long life\u27s work of teaching and scholarship in international law

Non-Compliance Terhadap Konvensi ILO Oleh Pemerintah Yordania : Studi Kasus Pekerja Anak Pengungsi Suriah

Jordan is a host country for Syrian refugees despite the fact that they have not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention. The high cost of living and the difficulty of obtaining legitimate employment in Jordan encouraging of child labor cases from Syrian refugees who are vulnerable to exploitation. In this case, Jordan has actually ratified the ILO Convention on child labor, but there are still many illegal displaced child laborers. This study aims to describe the attitude of non-compliance Jordan in adopting ILO convention. In this study, the authors use the concept of non-compliance of the theory of the international regime to explain that the state is not always willing to comply with international instruments that have been agreed. The research method used is qualitative which is done by collecting and analysing data, to find out the reason behind Jordanian non-compliance even though the government has ratified ILO Conventions. In this study, factors that resulted in the attitude of non-compliance of Jordan, such as the ambiguity of the interpretation of the ILO's Conventions by the Jordanian government, the limited capability of the state, and the influence of the temporal dimension in the country

Ronald V. Dellums v. George Bush (D.D.C. 1990): Memorandum Amicus Curiae of Law Professors

This joint memorandum is submitted to the court hearing Dellums v. Bush. This amicus brief advocates that the President may not order American armed forces to make war without consultation with and approval by Congress. The brief also argues that the case is justiciable