Many critics attack federal judges as anti-democratic elitists, activists out of step with the mainstream of American thought. But others argue that judges should stand alone as the ultimate guardians of American values, placing principle before the views of the people. In The Most Democratic Branch, Jeffrey Rosen disagrees with both assertions. Contrary to what interest groups may claim, he contends that, from the days of John Marshall right up to the present, the federal courts by and large have reflected the opinions of the mainstream. More important, he argues that the Supreme Court is most successful when it defers to the constitutional views of the American people, as represented most notably by Congress and the Presidency. And on the rare occasion when they departed from the consensus, the result has often been a disaster. To illustrate, Rosen provides a penetrating look at some of the most important Supreme Court cases in American history-cases involving racial equality, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights and gay marriage, the right to die, electoral disputes, and civil liberties in wartime. Rosen shows that the most notorious constitutional decisions in American history-the ones that have been most strenuously criticized, such as Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade-have gone against mainstream opinion. By contrast, the most successful decisions-from Marbury v. Madison to Brown v. Board of Education-have avoided imposing constitutional principles over the wishes of the people. Rosen concludes that the judiciary works best when it identifies the constitutional principles accepted by a majority of Americans, and enforces them unequivocally as fundamental law. Jeffrey Rosen is one of the most respected legal experts writing today, a regular contributor to The New York Times Magazine and the Legal Affairs Editor of The New Republic. The provocative arguments that he puts forth here are bound to fuel heated debate at a time when the federal judiciary is already the focus of fierce criticism.

Since World War II, remarkable progress has been made toward establishing more effective international laws and organizations to reduce opportunities for confrontation and conflict, and to enhance the pursuit of security and well-being. This book offers a detailed record of that progress, as well as its meaning for our times and those ahead. Taking a historical, theoretical, and case-study approach, John Gibson provides the reader with a broad understanding of how international organizations evolved to serve the interests of their member states, how the constitutional charters of organizations provide a coherent statement of goals and means to goals, and how these organizations are assuming increasing authority in the international system.

The work traces the progression of international constitutional and human rights law, with an emphasis on the past 45 years. In the first part, Gibson discusses the historic processes of political relations and mutual reliance; the evolution of these patterns through World War II; the subsequent history of the United Nations; the prime goals of international constitutional law; and the organizations' range of authority--from the high state to the supra-organization level. Part two offers a case study of the progression of international human rights law. Separate chapters trace the history of human rights in religion and philosophy and the role of the state in international law, while the concluding chapter on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights demonstrates how organizations actually function. This book will be a valuable resource for courses in international relations and international law, as well as an important addition to academic and professional libraries.

Incidents of bioterrorism and biowarfare are likely to recur, leading to increased public concern and government action. The deficiencies of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) are in urgent need of attention: the BTWC is the central international agreement to prevent the proliferation of biological warfare programmes.

Uniquely, this book is written by diplomats involved in the decade-long effort (1991-2001) in which State Parties to the BTWC tried to agree a Protocol to the Convention with legally binding measures to strengthen its effectiveness, and academics concerned with the negotiations. Just before negotiations foundered, when the Chairman's proposed text was virtually complete, the problems and proposed solutions were examined thoroughly, leading to this book.

The book is wide-ranging in its review of the history of biological warfare, the reasons why the current biological revolution is of such concern, and the main features of the BTWC itself. The core of the book examines the key elements of the proposed protocol - declarations, visits, challenge-type investigations, and enhanced international cooperation - and the implications for government, industry and biodefence, giving us all a better understanding of what still remains to be done to avert a biowarfare catastrophe.

Taxes are sometimes so fundamental to domestic systems that they are almost impossible to change, as when the tax system is part of a nation's majority religion or is linked to another value deeply rooted in local communities, such as housing or farming. There is a danger in the WTO, a Geneva-based entity, making decisions for people living in distant locations with regard to tax issues related to their local needs and wants. The Saudi Arabian tax system exemplifies the tension between religion, tax and trade, because tax has a role in the country's religion and is an essential part of its laws.

Therefore, there is a need for maintaining a delicate balance between local needs and international commitments with respect to taxation. This book aims to show directions in which legal order can be preserved as much as possible from within each country, and yet not imposed upon them, and which will help build a peaceful bridge between local and international factors that are important to shaping the global order.

Non-State Regulatory Regimes explores how the concept of regulation continues to evolve. The focus is placed on those forms of regulation that are different from state regulation or present alternatives to state regulation. Departing from an analysis of the goals and policies of the traditional regulatory state, the emergence of 'regulation by other means' is examined. The approach is interdisciplinary encompassing various perspectives be they legal, political, international relations-based, economic, or sociological. The task of comprehending non-state regulation is a daunting one. To date, a number of essays already exist, which concentrate on specific aspects of the issue. In comparison to these essays, this study is innovative in that it applies a holistic view. Linking public policy approaches to regulation, it draws a theoretical path to understanding the emergence and persistence of non-state jurisdictional assertions and regulatory regimes.

This volume of "The China Legal Development Yearbook" is the fourth in a series of annual reports written by leading Chinese law and legal policy scholars and judges to appear in English translation. This 2009 yearbook reviews major legal developments in 2008, and provides valuable insight into contemporary debates in China about the substance, direction and priorities of legal reform.

Command responsibility, or executive accountability, assumes that leaders are responsible for the actions of their subordinates. If subordinates misbehave, violate basic moral laws, transgress international law, or thwart international standards of behavior, their leader may be called before to justice. Standards that set the boundaries of human action have been evolving for many millennia, with some degree of precision arriving after the post-World War II international war crimes prosecutions. The United Nations and other organizations have helped codify the international law under which commanders may be held responsible. This book explores the factor that have moved civilization closer to a standard approach to rule of law and the accountability of leaders for the actions of those they command.

'State sovereignty' is often referred to as an obstacle to criminal justice for core international crimes by members of the international criminal justice movement. The exercise of State sovereignty is seen as a shield against effective implementation of such crimes. But it is sovereign States that create and become parties to international criminal law treaties and jurisdictions. They are the principal enforcers of criminal responsibility for international crimes, as reaffirmed by the complementarity principle on which the International Criminal Court (ICC) is based. Criminal justice for atrocities depends entirely on the ability of States to act. This volume revisits the relationship between State sovereignty and international criminal law along three main lines of inquiry. First, it considers the immunity of State officials from the exercise of foreign or international criminal jurisdiction. Secondly, with the closing down of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, attention shifts to the exercise of national jurisdiction over core international crimes, making the scope of universal jurisdiction more relevant to perceptions of State sovereignty. Thirdly, could the amendments to the ICC Statute on the crime of aggression exacerbate tensions between the interests of State sovereignty and accountability? The book contains contributions by prominent international lawyers including Professor Christian Tomuschat, Judge Erkki Kourula, Judge LIU Daqun, Ambassador WANG Houli, Dr. ZHOU Lulu, Professor Claus Kre, Professor MA Chengyuan, Professor JIA Bingbing, Professor ZHU Lijiang and Mr. GUO Yang.

Thomas D. Grant examines the Great Debate over state recognition, tracing its eclipse, and identifying trends in contemporary international law that may explain the lingering persistence of the terms of that debate. Although writers have generally accepted the declaratory view as more accurate than its old rival, the judicial sources often cited to support the declaratory view do not on scrutiny do so as decisively as commonly assumed. Contemporary doctrinal preference requires explanation. Declaratory doctrine, in its apparent diminution of the role state discretion plays in recognition, is in harmony, Grant asserts, with contemporary aspirations for international law. It may seem to many writers, he believes, that international governance functions better in a conceptual framework that reduces the power of states to legislate what entities are states.

Grant proceeds from this analysis of the contemporary status of the old debate to ask what questions now take center stage. In place of doctrine, Grant argues, process is the chief issue concerning recognition today. Whether to recognize unilaterally or in a collective framework; whether to acknowledge legal rules or to let recognition be controlled by political calculus--as Grant points out, such questions concern how states recognize, not the theoretical nature of recognition. This is an important analysis for scholars and researchers of international law and relations and contemporary European politics.

From June 25 to 27, 2008, the Naval War College had the honor to convene an International Law Expert's Workshop, "The War in Afghanistan - A Legal Analysis." This volume captures the legal lessons of the war in Afghanistan as reported, studied and debated by a rare gathering of eminent scholars and practitioners of international law. The workshop's mission was to provide a comprehensive legal examination of the Afghan conflict-from the decision to use force, to the manner with which force was employed, to the legal construct for the evolution of military operations transitioning away from the use of force. Renowned international academics and legal advisers, both military and civilian, representing military, diplomatic, nongovernmental and academic institutions from throughout the world contributed to the workshop and this volume.

Jo Bac's groundbreaking legal study asks why and how the United States legal system should grant legal personhood to artificial intelligence (AI). This new legal status of AI is visualized as a dependent person, and the AI dependent legal person would be determined by an inextricable connection between AI and a new type of corporate body, introduced here as "AI-Human Amalgamation" (AI-HA). Artificial Intelligence has been defined as one or more computer programs with an ability to create work that is unforeseen by humans. This includes AI capacity to generate unforeseen innovations, patentable inventions, and/or infringe the rights of other patent holders. At present, AI is an entity unrecognized by law. The fact that AI is neither a natural nor a legal person indicates that it cannot be considered the owner of rights or bearer of liabilities. This in turn creates tension both in society and legal systems because questions such as who should hold the rights of AI or be liable for autonomous acts of AI remain unanswered. This book dynamically argues that the AI dependent legal person and AI-HA are necessary to address these new challenges. The creativity and actions of AI and AI-HA would be distinct from those performed by human beings involved in the creation of this amalgamation, such as AI's operators or programmers. As such, this structure would constitute an amalgamation based on human beings and AI cooperation (AI-HA). As a dependent legal person, AI would hold the patent rights to its own inventions, thus ensuring favorable conditions for the incentives of the U.S. patent system. In addition, the proposed legal framework with the use of legislative instruments could address any liability concerns arising from foreseen and unforeseen actions, omissions, and AI's failure to act.

The events relating to Iraq have been critical in defining the post-Cold War inter national system of peace and secnrity. Dealing with Iraq covered the whole legal, political and emotional spectrum. The initial triumphalism was replaced by cyni cism and apathy, ending in division and enmity. Above all, it raised questions about the political and legal foundations of the international secnrity system, its players and their interests. The object of the present paper is to examine the cnr rent meaning and nature of the collective secnrity system premised on the United Nations. An understanding of the flaws and problems associated with the prac tice of this system will enable us to rethink its basis and propose a conceptual framework for its reconstitution on the basis of legitimacy, using the war on Iraq as a case study to illustrate onr arguments. The discussion will begin with a short presentation of the political and legal situation leading to the war against Iraq in March 2003. This will be followed by a critical analysis of the UN collective se cnrity architecture as it evolved after the end of the Cold War. Onr aim at this stage is to identify the characteristics of the system, consider the scope of subse quent developments in conceptual or practical terms and discuss their signifi cance for the international secnrity system."

This groundbreaking study seeks to clarify the concept of universal crimes in international law. It provides a new framework for understanding important features of this complex field of law concerned with the most serious crimes. Central issues include the following: What are the relevant crimes that may give rise to direct criminal liability under international law? Are they currently limited to certain core international crimes? Why should certain crimes be included whereas other serious offences should not? Should specific legal bases be considered more compelling than others for selection of crimes? Terje Einarsen (1960) is a judge at the Gulating High Court. He holds a Ph.D. (Doctor Juris) from the University of Bergen and a masters degree (LL.M.) from Harvard Law School.

The book analyzes different critical attitudes towards European integration from a multidisciplinary perspective. By applying both quantitative and normative-theoretical approaches, the contributors assess the causes and effects of the popularity of EU-critical positions and doctrines, such as souverainism, neo-nationalism and neo-populism. The book also presents country studies to compare populist movements and parties, such as the Five Stars Movement in Italy, Syriza in Greece and UKIP in the UK. It offers insights into the historical and normative roots of the diverse anti-European standpoints, and the various political demands and agendas connected with these views, ranging from rejections of EU institutions to demands for institutional reforms and propositions for alternative projects.

This volume of the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law explores the many faces of populism, and the different manifestations of the relationship between populism and international law. Rather than taking the so-called populist backlash against globalisation, international law and governance at face value, this volume aims to dig deeper and wonders 'What backlash are we talking about, really?'. While populism is contextual and contingent on the society in which it arises and its relationship with international law and institutions thus has differed likewise, this volume assists in our examination of what we find so dangerous about populism and problematic in its relationship with international law. The Netherlands Yearbook of International Law was first published in 1970. It offers a forum for the publication of scholarly articles in a varying thematic area of public international law.

Textbooks on international law, dicta of the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission's 'Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of states capable of creating legal obligations' of 2006, all reflect the fact that in international law a state's unilateral declaration can create a legally binding obligation. Unilateral declarations are common, as a look at the weekly headlines of any major newspaper will reveal. Many of the declarations made at the highest level are, of course, vaguely expressed and carry no tangible legal commitment. But others deliver a very clear message: for instance the US's April 2010 declaration on its future use of nuclear weapons or Kosovo's declaration of independence and pledge to follow the Ahtisaari Plan, are two recent and prominent examples of unilateral declarations at the international level. The same sources, however, also reveal that while state promises are accepted as a means for states to create full blown legal commitments, the law governing such declarations is far from clear. This monograph fills a gap in international legal scholarship by raising and answering the question of the precise legal value of such pledges in the realm of public international law. After a brief introduction state promises in international law are defined and contrasted with other unilateral acts of states, and the history of promises in state practice and court decisions is delineated, together with scholarly opinion. The book then provides a detailed picture of the international legal framework governing promises of states, and ends with a brief assessment of the raison d'etre for promises as a binding mechanism in international law, along with their advantages and disadvantages in comparison with the classical mechanism for assuming international obligations - the international treaty. This is currently the only book to present a comprehensive overview of the legal effect of promises by states in international law.

As a result of arms control efforts over the past 50 years, nuclear material is subject to strict national controls and tough international treaties. But there are still almost no controls, other than a voluntary International Atomic Energy Agency code of conduct, on the sorts of radiological sources used to make radiological dirty bombs. Radiological sources are used all over the world for a wide range of peaceful purposes, including smoke detectors, medical devices, meteorology, mining and thermoelectric generators. There are at least eight million identified radiological sources worldwide. Their small size, portability and high value make them vulnerable to misuse and theft: the IAEA reported 272 cases of illicit trafficking in sealed radioactive sources between 1993 and 2002.

The IAEA estimates that 110 countries worldwide still fail to impose adequate controls. The time is ripe for an international convention and treaty on the safety and security of radiological sources.

This book covers expert discussions designed to enhance cooperation and assistance between NATO and Partner countries in support of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) efforts to secure radioactive sources against the threat of terrorism and also to support the security agenda at the International Radiation Protection Association Congress in Buenos Aires in 2008.

The field of socio-legal research has encountered three fundamental challenges over the last three decades - it has been criticized for paying insufficient attention to legal doctrine, for failing to develop a sound theoretical foundation and for not keeping pace with the effects of the increasing globalization and internationalization of law, state and society. This book examines these three challenges from a methodological standpoint. It addresses the first two by demonstrating that legal sociology has much to say about justice as a kind of social experience and has always engaged theoretically with forms of normativity, albeit on its own empirical terms rather than on legal theory's analytical terms. The book then explores the third challenge, a result of the changing nature of society, by highlighting the move from the industrial relations of early modernity to the post-industrial conditions of late modernity, an age dominated by information technology. It poses the question whether socio-legal research has sufficiently reassessed its own theoretical premises regarding the relationship between law, state and society, so as to grasp the new social and cultural forms of organization specific to the twenty-first century's global societies.

This book is the report of a journey. The reader is invited to join the author on a th trip in time and space. The trip takes its starting-point in 17 century Europe and th the as yet confused post-Thirty Years War society. After some stops in the 18 th and 19 century the author brings us to the post-World War I society which is as confused and is torn between ideals and despair. Then we make a stop in the post-World War II society when ideals seemingly have made place for trust in power but where we also get a glance of the fragile sapling of human rights law. And finally we pause in the post-Cold War world and try to cast a look into the future. What is the purpose of this journey, what is the author in search of? As is clear from the title it is the concept of International Legal Personality which for many will have a rather formal and positive law connotation. But the journey does not take us into the cabinets of Foreign Ministries or to conference-rooms or United Nations-buildings where the law is made nor to the court-rooms where the law is interpreted and modelled.