REPAIRING OUR HUMAN RIGHTS REPUTATION

The start of a new law school year is a most fitting time to think anew about what we stand for, as lawyers and Americans. I hope I can use this occasion to address a most serious subject: repairing our human rights reputation

Judge Wilkey\u27s Contributions to International Law and the Foreign Relations Law of the United States

Many federal judges treat international law like many historians treat military history: as law or history in name only, comprising great works not worth knowing and arcane intricacies not worth understanding. But not Malcolm Richard Wilkey. During his more than fourteen years in judicial robes, Judge Wilkey spent nearly as much time learning and loving internationallaw as he spent learning and loving military history. And when he retired from active service on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in December 1984 (only to be called from retirement less than a year later to serve as United States Ambassador to Uruguay), Judge Wilkey left behind a reputation as one of the foremost students of international and foreign relations law ever to have graced the federal bench

Foreign Official Immunity After Samantar: A United States Government Perspective

I am delighted to speak here at Vanderbilt regarding the U.S. Government\u27s perspective on Foreign Official Immunity after Samantar v. Yousuf.\u27 In the Samantar case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the immunity of foreign government officials sued in their personal capacity in U.S. courts, including for alleged human rights violations, is not controlled by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, but rather, by immunity determinations made by the Executive Branch. Let me break my topic today into three parts: first, the world of foreign official immunity as it existed before the Samantar case; second, the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Samantar and its implications; and third, the State Department\u27s New Samantar Process, which has been emerging since the Supreme Court\u27s decision--focusing, in particular, on distinguishing what we call Samantar issues from non-Samantar issues, the effect of a State Department suggestion of immunity, and the effect of State Department silence with respect to a foreign official\u27s claim of immunity

Perspectives on the Restatement (Fourth) Project

Good morning, everyone, and thank you all for coming. It is great to have this conversation, particularly with so many people who are already helpfully contributing to this project. As Bill said, I just wanted to say a little bit about the treaty prong of the project that was approved for consideration by the ALI a couple of years ago. First of all, I should note we get a lot of questions about whether or not we are addressing executive agreements and congressional executive agreements, in addition to Article II treaties. And the current answer is that we are not. We were originally tasked by the ALI to take up the status of Article II treaties in U.S. domestic law, and that is the current character of the project

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

\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