External Sovereignty and International Law

This essay addresses the need to redefine current notions of sovereignty. It returns to earlier concepts of subjects joining to receive the benefits of peace and security provided by the sovereign. It diverges from most contemporary commentary by avoiding what has become traditional second-tier social contract analysis. In place of a social contract of states, this redefinition of sovereignty recognizes that international law in the twentieth century has developed direct links between the individual and international law. The trend toward democracy as an international law norm further supports discarding notions of a two-tiered social contract relationship between the individual and international law

Promoting the Rule of Law: Cooperation and Competition in the EU-US Relationship

Both the United States and the European Union fund programs designed to develop the rule of law in transition countries. Despite significant expenditures in this area, however, neither has developed either a clear definition of what is meant by the rule of law or a catalogue of programs that can result in coordination of rule of law efforts. This article is the result of a presentation at a May 2010 policy conference at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, at which U.S. and EU government officials, scholars, and practitioners discussed the concept of rule of law and efforts to implement rule of law in transition countries. It introduces the issues discussed at the conference, summarizes the results, and introduces four articles resulting from the conference that are published in the same issue of the University of Pittsburgh Law Review

Punitive Damages Revisited: Taking the Rationale for Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments Too Far

Punitive damages have been a controversial aspect of U.S. law; often criticized both at home and abroad. Neither U.S. law on punitive damages nor the foreign climate regarding their reception has remained static. This article notes the continuing legislative attack on punitive damages in the United States at both the state and federal level, and focuses on recent developments in case law and treaty negotiations concerning the reception of punitive damages abroad. The article begins with a brief review of the background against which current punitive damages law in the United States continues to operate, followed by consideration of the continuing evolution of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence on punitive damages. The Beals case in the Supreme Court of Canada and new uniform Canadian legislation on the enforcement of foreign judgments demonstrate two very different approaches to U.S. punitive damages by foreign courts. The issue is also the focus of Article 11 of the new Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, which offers a much more moderate approach than the Canadian uniform act, which, if widely adopted, would constitute a major step back in terms of predictability in business and judicial relationships

A Global Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements

A Special Commission of the Hague Conference on Private International Law will meet during the first nine days of December 2003 to consider a Draft Text on Choice of Court Agreements

HARRY FLECHTNER—A TRUE TEACHER/SCHOLAR, WITH RHYTHM

n/

The European Magnet And The U.S. Centrifuge: Ten Selected Private International Law Developments of 2008

This article began as a short presentation for the 2008 International Law Weekend in New York City