Congress Continues to Attack Currency Manipulation as China Defuses G-20 Pressure For Now: the International Law Issues
Introduction
Topic:
Volume:
14
Issue:
19
PDF Version:
Image:
Organizations of Note:
North America
Samantar v. Yousuf: Foreign Official Immunity Under Common Law
Introduction
The recent Supreme Court decision in Samantar v. Yousuf[1] definitively resolved one major question about the immunities of foreign government officials from civil suits in U.S. courts; at the same time, it left several others wide open. It thereby guaranteed that the source, scope, and certainty of such immunities will continue to be litigated energetically. This Insight explores some of the questions that will likely figure prominently in that litigation.
Topic:
Volume:
14
Issue:
15
PDF Version:
Image:
Organizations of Note:
ABA Adopts ABA-ASIL Joint Task Force Policies on Implementing Treaties under U.S. Law
Introduction
Topic:
Volume:
14
Issue:
10
PDF Version:
Image:
Who can be detained in the "War on Terror"? The Emerging Answer
Introduction
Topic:
Volume:
13
Issue:
18
PDF Version:
Image:
Wiwa v. Shell: The $15.5 Million Settlement
Introduction
Topic:
Volume:
13
Issue:
14
PDF Version:
Image:
Organizations of Note:
Foreign Officials and Sovereign Immunity in U.S. Courts
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides that foreign states shall be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts unless the suit falls within a specified statutory exception to immunity. There is currently a conflict among the federal circuit courts over whether suits against individual foreign officials are covered by the FSIA. If such suits are not covered by the FSIA, additional questions are raised concerning a possible common law immunity for foreign officials. This Insight describes both the conflict and the additional questions.
Background
Topic:
Volume:
13
Issue:
3
Image:
The Torture Memos and Accountability
Introduction
Topic:
Volume:
13
Issue:
6
Image:
Supreme Court Holds that Noncitizens Detained at Guantanamo Have a Constitutional Right to Habeas Corpus Review by Federal Civilian Courts
On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled against the U.S. government in cases brought by foreign nationals challenging their detention at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military facility.[1] A five-justice majority in Boumediene v. Bush held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA)[2] violated the U.S.
Topic:
Volume:
12
Issue:
13
Image:
Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc.: Supreme Court Denies Enforcement of Agreement to Expand the Grounds for Vacatur Under the Federal Arbitration Act
On March 25, 2008, the United States Supreme Court announced its judgment in Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc.,[1] a case involving the exclusivity of the grounds for vacating arbitral awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As explained below, the decision holds that the disputing parties may not agree to expand the grounds for vacatur beyond those listed in 9 U.S.C. § 10.
Topic:
Volume:
12
Issue:
11
Image:
Organizations of Note:
Medellin v. Texas: Supreme Court Holds ICJ Decisions under the Consular Convention Not Binding Federal Law, Rejects Presidential Enforcement of ICJ Judgments over State Proceedings
On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Medellin v. Texas,[1] a case in which a Mexican national on death row in Texas challenged his conviction on the basis that he was not afforded his right of consular notification under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the 2004 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Mexico v.
Topic:
Volume:
12
Issue:
6
Image:
Organizations of Note: