The Legacy of Operation Allied Force: A Reflection on its Legality Under United States and International Law

Article published in the Michigan State International Law Review

The Nature of a Passport at the Intersection of Customary International Law and American Judicial Practice

In order to fully develop the argument that the DHS’s confiscation and impoundment of passports is a violation of customary international law, we begin by examining the history of a passport and its treatment in the international community. Next, we survey general principles of customary international law and analyze German case law holding that one State’s confiscation or impounding of a valid foreign passport constitutes an encroachment upon the passport jurisdiction of the foreign State issuing the documents which is impermissible under customary international law. Thereafter, we discuss case law where courts avoided addressing the international implications of passport seizures. We then examine the United States government’s view of passports by tracking the shift in its behavior from adhering to international norms to placing domestic prerogatives over customary international law. In doing so, we survey United States law pertaining to confiscation of passports. We conclude that the United States government’s impounding of a foreign passport violates general principles of customary international law because the United States government’s act of impounding a foreign passport is an encroachment upon the personal jurisdiction of the issuing State. However, we acknowledge that the rationale behind the DHS’s continued practice of impounding passports in violation of customary international law suggests that the United States government believes ensuring the return of the foreign national is more important than a State’s personal jurisdiction over its property. Accordingly, we recommend that the United States codify the authority, means, and methods by which such impounding can be carried out in order to avoid international retaliation

The Nature of a Passport at the Intersection of Customary International Law and American Judicial Practice

In order to fully develop the argument that the DHS’s confiscation and impoundment of passports is a violation of customary international law, we begin by examining the history of a passport and its treatment in the international community. Next, we survey general principles of customary international law and analyze German case law holding that one State’s confiscation or impounding of a valid foreign passport constitutes an encroachment upon the passport jurisdiction of the foreign State issuing the documents which is impermissible under customary international law. Thereafter, we discuss case law where courts avoided addressing the international implications of passport seizures. We then examine the United States government’s view of passports by tracking the shift in its behavior from adhering to international norms to placing domestic prerogatives over customary international law. In doing so, we survey United States law pertaining to confiscation of passports. We conclude that the United States government’s impounding of a foreign passport violates general principles of customary international law because the United States government’s act of impounding a foreign passport is an encroachment upon the personal jurisdiction of the issuing State. However, we acknowledge that the rationale behind the DHS’s continued practice of impounding passports in violation of customary international law suggests that the United States government believes ensuring the return of the foreign national is more important than a State’s personal jurisdiction over its property. Accordingly, we recommend that the United States codify the authority, means, and methods by which such impounding can be carried out in order to avoid international retaliation

The Legacy of Operation Allied Force: A Reflection on its Legality Under United States and International Law

Article published in the Michigan State International Law Review

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo