Not-so-Great Weight: Treaty Deference and the Article 10(a) Controversy

For the past twenty-one years, federal courts interpreting Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention have arrived at opposite conclusions about whether the provision authorizes litigants to serve process on foreign defendants directly through the mail. The dispute arises because of ambiguous wording in the Article, which states that litigants may “send judicial documents” by mail, but says nothing of “service.” At first blush, the dispute appears to turn on dueling principles of statutory interpretation: courts that adhere rigidly to text do not allow direct mail service, whereas courts that look past text, to intent, do. This Note argues, however, that the controversy is explained by a problem particular to treaty interpretation: when the executive branch renders its opinion on the meaning of a treaty, federal courts do not have a principled standard by which to weigh the amount of deference due to this opinion. This Note argues that the Skidmore standard, of administrative law, best fills the gap

Subglacial drainage processes at a High Arctic polythermal valley glacier

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Occurrence cubes : a new paradigm for aggregating species occurrence data

In this paper we describe a method of aggregating species occurrence data into what we coined “occurrence cubes”. The aggregated data can be perceived as a cube with three dimensions - taxonomic, temporal and geographic - and takes into account the spatial uncertainty of each occurrence. The aggregation level of each of the three dimensions can be adapted to the scope. Built on Open Science principles, the method is easily automated and reproducible, and can be used for species trend indicators, maps and distribution models. We are using the method to aggregate species occurrence data for Europe per taxon, year and 1km2 European reference grid, to feed indicators and risk mapping/modelling for the Tracking Invasive Alien Species (TrIAS) project

Not Peace, but a Sword: Navy v. Egan and the Case Against Judicial Abdication in Foreign Affairs

In the United States\u27 system of separation of powers, the judiciary must safeguard the rights of individuals from abuses by the political branches of government. Yet, when it comes to matters touching foreign affairs, scholars such as John Yoo and jurists such as Antonin Scalia argue that the executive branch is entitled to virtually unreviewable discretion. They point to Navy v. Egan for support. There, the Court held that an administrative body that hears appeals from adverse actions against government employees was precluded from reviewing the merits of security clearance determinations because the executive branch deserves super-strong deference in foreign affairs. An examination of the disastrous consequences of Egan crystallizes the constitutional and functional arguments against super-strong deference to the executive-both in foreign affairs generally and in the security clearance process specifically. The case has prompted lower courts to deny plaintiffs an independent forum in which to bring constitutional claims related to security clearance denials and revocations. Egan\u27s progeny flouts the longstanding principle that an individual who suffers a constitutional injury is entitled to an appropriate remedy. Furthermore, by abdicating its duty to check executive power in the security clearance context, the judiciary has fortified deficiencies inherent to executive agency decisionmaking, namely tunnel vision, path dependency, and imperialist tendencies. Abdication has also enabled a systematic denial of clearances to candidates with foreign connections. Without a diverse counterterrorism workforce, the United States lacks the operational proficiency and the legitimacy to wage a successful war on terrorism. This Note is the first to call on the judiciary to reclaim the right to exercise judicial review of the merits of security clearance determinations. Furthermore, it charts a path for lower courts to reopen judicial review of the merits of security clearance determinations, provide injured plaintiffs with a remedy, deter future racial discrimination, and avert a chilling effect on agency decisionmakers