Treatment of International Human Rights Violations in the United States

In our day and age, the violation of human rights has become a matter of international concern. This article is focused on the sharing of those concerns by the United States, in particular as manifested by the treatment of human rights violations in the United States. Following introductory observations in Part I highlighting the special commitment of the United States to the protection of international human rights, the article will show, in Part II thereof, that in virtue of Article 6, Clause [2] of the American Constitution (the Supremacy Clause), human rights conventions are in principle self-executing in the United States.1 However, the United States invariably adds a reservation to its instruments of ratification of such conventions proclaiming that they will not be self-executing in the United States. Incorporating the provisions of human rights conventions ratified by the United States into the country’s municipal legal system therefore requires Congressional implementation legislation, which will be exemplified in Part III with reference to the Torture Convention Implementation Act of 1994. Part IV of the article is devoted to the exercise of universal jurisdiction by federal courts, in virtue of Article 1, Section (8), Clause [10] of the Constitution, to bring to justice those responsible for piracies and felonies on the High Seas and offences against the law of nations.2 In the United States, universal jurisdiction of federal courts is not confined to criminal prosecutions but has also been extended by the Alien Tort Statute to civil actions by foreign victims of a tort that constitutes a violation of the law of nations or of a treaty entered into by the United States.3 The treatment of human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute and similar legislation is the subject-matter of Part V of this article. Some concluding observations to evaluate the above manifestations of the American commitment to human rights, notably in view of considerations based on the national interests of the United States and a perception of American exceptionalism, will bring the article to a close in Part VI thereof.http://dflsc.law.duke.edu/am201

The Right To Self-Determination And Its Enforcement

The right to self-determination of peoples, alongside the equality of nations, large and small, has been recognized as a basic norm of international law

Tribute: David Bederman

There is much that can be said about the academic excellence, practical skills, and general prestige of David Bederman within the legal fraternity. His résumé records the many achievements that attended his academic studies at Princeton, the London School of Economics, and the University of London, where he in 1996 received the Ph.D. Degree in Laws

The ISIS Crisis and the Development of International Humanitarian Law

Johan D. van der Vyver analyzes efforts to respond to acts of violence committed by ISIL and its successor, ISIS. One such response is the \u27unwilling or unable\u27 paradigm under which the armed forces of State A can take military action against terrorist groups located in State B if the government of State B is either unwilling or unable to prevent its territory from being to launch attacks. The paradigm has been used to justify airstrikes by the United States against al-Qaeda and ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Professor van der Vyver argues that the paradigm does not fit the conditions of self-defense under the U.N. Charter or the essential objectives of humanitarian intervention and concludes that the unwilling or unable rationale is a new norm of jus ad bellum in the making