The Oxford Guide to Treaties; Edited by Duncan B. Hollis; \u3ci\u3eRecent Books on International Law: Book Reviews\u3c/i\u3e

This is a review of The Oxford Guide to Treaties (2012), edited by Duncan B. Hollis

DeHart, Hollis, b. 1938 (FA 1342)

Finding aid and full-text scan of collection (Click on “Additional Files” below) for Folklife Archives Project 1342. Local lore collected in Russell County, Kentucky by Hollis DeHart for a folk studies class at Campbellsville College, Campbellsville, Kentucky. Survey sheets may include a brief narrative, origin, informant’s name, age, and location

Treaty Self-Execution as “Foreign” Foreign Relations Law?

This contribution to the Oxford Handbook on Comparative Foreign Relations considers how a state’s approach to foreign relations problems may have an external origin, or what we call “foreign” Foreign Relations Law (FFRL). Using the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties as a case study, we find close parallels between manifestations of this distinction in various states and how it evolved in the United States, where the distinction was first articulated. The chapter explores whether these parallels reflect the distinction’s transplantation from one legal system to another or the organic development of similar doctrines to address similar problems within the states involved. The chapter then addresses the utility of differentiating the exogenous/endogenous origins of particular foreign relations doctrines. We argue that consideration of a doctrine’s exogenous origins raises questions that can deepen and develop the nascent field of comparative foreign relations law. Why do states accept (or reject) FFRL? How does FFRL enter a state’s system? Who is doing the transporting? What happens to FFRL in its new site(s) – i.e., how static or dynamic does the concept prove in different settings? Further research on such questions may, in turn, set the table for more normative questions such as when states should seek (or resist) the importation of foreign relations law

Ruby J. (Hollis) Meehan, interviewed by Bruce B. Brown, Jr.

Ruby J. (Hollis) Meehan, interviewed by Bruce B. Brown, Jr. at her Veazie, Maine, home on December 5, 1977. Mrs Meehan discusses Veazie history and her life in Veazie after marrying John E. Meehan. Listen mfc_na1135_t1197_01https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mf064/1038/thumbnail.jp

Liquid immersion apparatus for minute articles

Apparatus is disclosed for immersing minute integrated circuit chips in an etching solution in manufacturing integrated circuits during research and development. The apparatus includes a holder, having a handle and basket support for carrying a removable unitary basket and lid structure where fluid flow-through passages are formed, and wherein graduated openings in the handle provide for adjustably supporting the basket in a breaker at a desired level

Method of construction of a multi-cell solar array

The method of constructing a high voltage, low power, multicell solar array is described. A solar cell base region is formed in a substrate such as but not limited to silicon or sapphire. A protective coating is applied on the base and a patterned etching of the coating and base forms discrete base regions. A semiconductive junction and upper active region are formed in each base region, and defined by photolithography. Thus, discrete cells which are interconnected by metallic electrodes are formed

An Intersubjective Treaty Power

This Article explores whether the Constitution limits the making and implementation of U.S. treaties to subjects of “international” intercourse or concern. It does so in two steps. First, I undertake the existential inquiry, asking if the Constitution requires a nexus between treaties and “international” subject matters. I argue that Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are correct—and the Restatement (Third) is wrong—on the question of whether the Constitution imposes an affirmative subject matter limitation on the treaty power. Various modalities of constitutional interpretation—original meaning, historical practice, doctrine, structure, and prudence—offer evidence in support of some version of an “international concern” test. And this claim holds whether one endorses or rejects the claim that federalism requires reserved powers’ limitations on the treaty power or treaty-implementing legislation