The Experts below are selected from a list of 124239 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
William S Dodge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
jurisdictional reasonableness under customary international law the approach of the restatement fourth of Foreign Relations law
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: William S DodgeAbstract:This essay discusses the approach to jurisdictional reasonableness under customary international law in the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law. The Restatement (Fourth) rejects the Restatement (Third)’s case-by-case approach to reasonableness, but it does not reject reasonableness. The Restatement (Fourth) incorporates reasonableness at the level of customary international law by requiring a “genuine connection” between the subject of the regulation and the State seeking to regulate. The Restatement (Fourth) further incorporates reasonableness at the level of US domestic law through the presumption against extraterritoriality and the principle of reasonableness in interpretation, which limit the reach of US law beyond what customary international law requires. Finally, the essay defends the unilateral character of the Restatement (Fourth)’s approach to jurisdictional reasonableness.
-
reasonableness in the restatement fourth of Foreign Relations law
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: William S DodgeAbstract:This symposium essay compares the different conceptions of reasonableness in the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law and the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law. Part I discusses Section 403 of the Restatement (Third), recounting its origins and the subsequent failure of courts in the United States and abroad to embrace its case-by-case approach. Part II describes the principles of reasonableness found in the Restatement (Fourth), including customary international law’s “genuine connection” requirement, the presumption against extraterritoriality, and the principle of reasonableness in interpretation. Part III offers a brief evaluation of the different approaches to reasonableness, concluding that the Restatement (Fourth)’s provison-by-provision approach is preferable.
Kristina Johnson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
state control and the effects of Foreign Relations on bilateral trade
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2019Co-Authors: Christina L Davis, Andreas Fuchs, Kristina JohnsonAbstract:Can governments still use trade to reward and punish partner countries? While World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and the pressures of globalization restrict states’ capacity to manipulate trade p...
-
state control and the effects of Foreign Relations on bilateral trade
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Christina L Davis, Andreas Fuchs, Kristina JohnsonAbstract:Do states use trade to reward and punish partners? WTO rules and the pressures of globalization restrict states’ capacity to manipulate trade policies, but we argue that governments can link political goals with economic outcomes using less direct avenues of influence over firm behavior. Where governments intervene in markets, politicization of trade is likely to occur. In this paper, we examine one important form of government control: state ownership of firms. Taking China and India as examples, we use bilateral trade data by firm ownership type, as well as measures of bilateral political Relations based on diplomatic events and UN voting to estimate the effect of political Relations on import and export flows. Our results support the hypothesis that imports controlled by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) exhibit stronger responsiveness to political Relations than imports controlled by private enterprises. A more nuanced picture emerges for exports; while India’s exports through SOEs are more responsive to political tensions than its flows through private entities, the opposite is true for China. This research holds broader implications for how we should think about the Relationship between political and economic Relations going forward, especially as a number of countries with partially state-controlled economies gain strength in the global economy.
Andreas Fuchs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
state control and the effects of Foreign Relations on bilateral trade
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2019Co-Authors: Christina L Davis, Andreas Fuchs, Kristina JohnsonAbstract:Can governments still use trade to reward and punish partner countries? While World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and the pressures of globalization restrict states’ capacity to manipulate trade p...
-
state control and the effects of Foreign Relations on bilateral trade
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Christina L Davis, Andreas Fuchs, Kristina JohnsonAbstract:Do states use trade to reward and punish partners? WTO rules and the pressures of globalization restrict states’ capacity to manipulate trade policies, but we argue that governments can link political goals with economic outcomes using less direct avenues of influence over firm behavior. Where governments intervene in markets, politicization of trade is likely to occur. In this paper, we examine one important form of government control: state ownership of firms. Taking China and India as examples, we use bilateral trade data by firm ownership type, as well as measures of bilateral political Relations based on diplomatic events and UN voting to estimate the effect of political Relations on import and export flows. Our results support the hypothesis that imports controlled by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) exhibit stronger responsiveness to political Relations than imports controlled by private enterprises. A more nuanced picture emerges for exports; while India’s exports through SOEs are more responsive to political tensions than its flows through private entities, the opposite is true for China. This research holds broader implications for how we should think about the Relationship between political and economic Relations going forward, especially as a number of countries with partially state-controlled economies gain strength in the global economy.
Christina L Davis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
state control and the effects of Foreign Relations on bilateral trade
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2019Co-Authors: Christina L Davis, Andreas Fuchs, Kristina JohnsonAbstract:Can governments still use trade to reward and punish partner countries? While World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and the pressures of globalization restrict states’ capacity to manipulate trade p...
-
state control and the effects of Foreign Relations on bilateral trade
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Christina L Davis, Andreas Fuchs, Kristina JohnsonAbstract:Do states use trade to reward and punish partners? WTO rules and the pressures of globalization restrict states’ capacity to manipulate trade policies, but we argue that governments can link political goals with economic outcomes using less direct avenues of influence over firm behavior. Where governments intervene in markets, politicization of trade is likely to occur. In this paper, we examine one important form of government control: state ownership of firms. Taking China and India as examples, we use bilateral trade data by firm ownership type, as well as measures of bilateral political Relations based on diplomatic events and UN voting to estimate the effect of political Relations on import and export flows. Our results support the hypothesis that imports controlled by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) exhibit stronger responsiveness to political Relations than imports controlled by private enterprises. A more nuanced picture emerges for exports; while India’s exports through SOEs are more responsive to political tensions than its flows through private entities, the opposite is true for China. This research holds broader implications for how we should think about the Relationship between political and economic Relations going forward, especially as a number of countries with partially state-controlled economies gain strength in the global economy.
Leila Nadya Sadat - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the proposed restatement fourth of the Foreign Relations law of the united states treaties some serious procedural and substantive concerns
BYU Law Review, 2015Co-Authors: Leila Nadya SadatAbstract:INTRODUCTIONThe drafting of a new Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law was proposed to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2012, and the project is now well under way. Multiple preliminary drafts have been circulated on the topics of Jurisdiction, Sovereign Immunity, and Treaties, and discussion has begun amongst ALI Members about the black letter law and commentary they contain. Because the ultimate adoption of any provisions by the membership of the ALI will take time, however, and is certainly not a foregone conclusion, it remains useful to consider at this relatively early stage whether the project has been well-conceived, and is on the right track.This Essay will consider the most recent Discussion Draft of April 2015 on the Status of Treaties in United States Law,1 and not the tentative drafts on Jurisdiction and Sovereign Immunity. This brief examination of the Treaty Draft raises real questions about both the scope and execution of the Restatement (Fourth) project more generally. Particularly worrying is the reporters' decision not to begin the project with a comprehensive outline of the provisions they intend to cover, a process issue magnified by some substantive concerns raised by the content of the proposed Black Letter Law, Comments, and Reporters' Notes, many of which are addressed in other contributions to this Symposium. The present Essay focuses more upon the structure and probable impact of the project than the substance of the text, but does question certain substantive choices made by the drafters, as well as their overall normative approach. This Essay suggests that it would have been preferable for the reporters to develop an outline of the entire project before attempting to draft sections piecemeal. This would render the final project, and even sections completed along the way, both more complete and authoritative and would promote greater transparency about the project as a whole. it could also help in understanding the Relationship between the Restatements (Third) and (Fourth) for the time period during which they will overlap. This Essay concludes, perhaps uncomfortably, that if the reporters are unable to do this, they should reconsider whether it is appropriate to be engaged in the project at all.In terms of specific comments, this Essay questions the Discussion Draffs narrow scope, and suggests a return to the unitary structure of Section 111 of the Restatement (Third), rather than the fragmented approach of the current initiative, which has separated Article II treaties from all other forms of international law. Because other contributions to this volume have taken up in detail the discussion of Section 106 (Self-Executing and Non-self-Executing Treaty Provisions), this Essay does not address that issue, although many of the critiques raised in those contributions echo some of my own concerns.2I. HISTORY AND ORIGIN OF THE RESTATEMENT (FOURTH) PROJECTIn 1987, the American Law Institute published the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States.3 This two-volume work was the successor to the 1965 Restatement, and its Chief Reporter was the late Louis Henkin of Columbia University, who was assisted by Andreas Lowenfeld, Louis Sohn, and Detlev Vagts as additional Reporters.4 The Restatement (Third) is divided into nine Parts, some of which address questions of international law, others the Relationship of international law to U.S. law, and still others address questions of U.S. domestic law, and more particularly U.S. Constitutional law. As Geoffrey Hazard, Director of the ALI at the time of the Restatement (Third)'s publication, noted, many questions of U.S. Foreign Relations law raise constitutional questions involving the independence of the judiciary, "the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the special constitutional role of the Senate with respect to treaties, and the federal structure of government. …
-
the proposed restatement fourth of the Foreign Relations law of the united states treaties some serious procedural and substantive concerns
2015Co-Authors: Leila Nadya SadatAbstract:The drafting of a new Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law was proposed to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2012, and the project is now well under way. Because the ultimate adoption of any provisions by the membership of the ALI will take time, however, and is not a foregone conclusion, this Essay considers at this relatively early stage of the project whether the project has been well-conceived, and is on the right track. It critiques the most recent Discussion Draft of April 2015 on the Status of Treaties in United States Law, for its failure to propose a comprehensive work plan and for its divergence from the text of the Third Restatement regarding the status of international law in U.S. law. In particular, it faults the April Discussion Draft for its decision to separate Article II treaties from all other sources of international law in a distinction driven by academic commentary that appears artificial and unsupported by the case law. The Essay argues for a return to the unitary structure found in the Third Restatement, and suggests that future work on this proposed section should either include a comprehensive proposed work plan or be abandoned.
