American Law Institute Releases a Volume of the Restatement Fourth of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Partially Revising the Restatement Third

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 386-388 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
The Third ◽  
American Law

In late 2018, the American Law Institute released a volume of the Restatement Fourth of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. Initiated in October 2012 under the direction of Coordinating Reporters Sarah Cleveland and Paul Stephan, this volume covers three areas of U.S. foreign relations law: treaties, jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity. It remains to be seen whether the American Law Institute will revisit other portions of the Restatement Third, which was published in 1987. “[I]n the meantime, the provisions of the Third Restatement remain the position of The American Law Institute except where superseded by provisions in this Fourth Restatement.”

Recognition, Use of Force, and the Legal Effect of United Nations Resolutions under the Revised Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States

1984 ◽  
Vol 19 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 495-522
Author(s):  
Malvina Halberstam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Weight ◽  
Private Organization ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Subject

The prestigious American Law Institute is in the process of promulgating a revised Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. The present Restatement on the subject was adopted in 1962 and finally promulgated with revisions in 1965. Work on a revised restatement began in the late 1970s and the first tentative draft was submitted to the Institute in 1980. Thus far, five tentative drafts have been presented to the members of the Institute for their consideration and the Restatement as a whole is scheduled for consideration by the members of the Institute at its annual meeting in May 1985.The American Law Institute is a private organization of jurists, not a legislative body, and the Restatements are not official codifications. However, since the Institute membership includes some of the most noted scholars, judges and practitioners in the United States, the Restatements carry great weight and are often cited by United States courts in their decisions.

Customary International Law and U.S. Judicial Power

2020 ◽  
pp. 251-264
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Third

This chapter describes specific points of divergence between the Third and Fourth Restatements of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States regarding how U.S. courts should engage with customary international law. The Third Restatement, adopted in 1987, envisioned U.S. courts fluent in and engaged with international law, deploying a U.S. foreign relations jurisprudence in dialogue with international law and lawyers. Customary international law was a central feature of this vision because it was the prime pathway for human rights litigation in federal courts when U.S. treaty-based human-rights initiatives had stalled. Appearing thirty years later, the Fourth Restatement exhibits a fundamentally different orientation toward customary international law. Customary international law is no longer embraced as it was in the Third Restatement as an opportunity to play offense, to advance the international law of human rights. That vision inspired a reaction among some U.S. legal scholars who questioned the U.S. federal law status of customary international law and the legitimacy of U.S. judges advancing the customary international law of human rights. The Fourth Restatement seeks a middle ground by defending against this revision of customary international law’s status role in the United States, concerned that the revisionist view might encourage and provide cover for U.S. courts to dismiss cases and claims with foreign policy ramifications that they should be adjudicating. The approaches of the two Restatements, taken together, have contributed to the disengagement of U.S. judges from customary international law altogether, to the detriment of U.S. conduct of foreign policy and contrary to the original constitutional specification of the judicial power of the United States as reflected in Article III, the Judiciary Act of 1789 that established the federal courts, and early historical practice.

Comparative International Law, Foreign Relations Law, and Fragmentation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul B. Stephan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Third ◽  
Ways Of Thinking ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
British Commonwealth ◽  
Distinct Field

This chapter considers the rise of foreign relations law as a way of thinking about the legal dimensions of international relations. It connects this development to the emergence of comparative international law and anxieties about fragmentation in international law. Each of these fields challenges conventional ways of thinking about international law and thus seems to bolster those who would dismiss international law as irrelevant or ineffectual. The chapter proceeds in three sections. The first describes contemporary foreign relations law as a distinct field that emerged in the United States in the late 1990s and developed independently in parts of the British Commonwealth and Europe. It traces the parallels with and differences between foreign relations law and comparative international law. The second section considers the possibility these complementary trends, as well as concerns about fragmentation, pose a threat to international law as conventionally conceived. The third section responds to these concerns.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Sarah H Cleveland ◽  
Paul B. Stephan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Third ◽  
History Of

This introductory chapter serves as a foreword for the volume. It sketches the history of past restatements and the evolution of the latest one. The first (confusingly called Second) Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States brought widespread attention to the term “foreign relations law.” It staunchly defended the proposition that foreign relations, no matter how imbued with discretion and prerogative, still must rest on law. The Third Restatement, prepared during a period of what to many seemed constitutional retrenchment and a loosening of judicial supervision over public life, offered a robust defense of the proposition that, “In conducting the foreign relations of the United States, Presidents, members of Congress, and public officials are not at large in a political process; they are under law.” Moreover, it insisted that the judiciary, as much as the executive and Congress, creates and enforces this law. To the extent that the Third Restatement rested its claims on its view of the state of customary international law, other influential actors pushed back. The Fourth Restatement revisits the Third’s claims, especially about the central role of the judiciary, in light of the evolution of both U.S. and international law and practice.

Jurisdiction, State Immunity, and Judgments in the Restatement (Fourth) of US Foreign Relations Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-135
Author(s):  
William S Dodge
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Frequency ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In 2018, the American Law Institute published the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law, which restates the law of the United States governing jurisdiction, state immunity, and judgments. These issues arise with great frequency in international cases brought in US courts, including cases involving Chinese parties. This article provides an overview of many of the key provisions of the Restatement (Fourth). The article describes the Restatement (Fourth)’s treatment of the customary international law of jurisdiction, as well the rules of US domestic law based on international comity that US courts apply when deciding international cases.

scholarly journals Introduction to Symposium on the Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law School ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Third ◽  
American Law

The American Law Institute (ALI) has recently embarked on the project of elaborating a new Restatement of Conflict of Laws. Its first two Restatements on this subject have been enormously influential. The Ali began its work on the First Restatement in 1923, naming Joseph Beale of the Harvard Law School as its Reporter. Adopted in 1934, the First Restatement reflected the highly territorialist approach to the conflict of laws that had long prevailed in this country. Even before the First Restatement’s adoption, the First Restatement’s territorialist approach, and the “vested rights” theory on which it was based, was subjected to intense scholarly criticism. Nevertheless, the First Restatement’s approach continued to prevail in the United States until the New York Court of Appeals initiated a “choice-of-law revolution” in the early 1960’s with its decision inBabcock v. Jackson. Although most states have departed from the First Restatement’s approach, the First Restatement retains its adherents. Ten states continue to follow the First Restatement for tort cases and twelve states for contract cases.

The Fourth Restatement, International Law, and the “Terrorism” Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 391-410
Author(s):  
Beth Stephens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

This chapter evaluates the “terrorism” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets out to “restate” the law of the United States and “relevant portions of international law,” not to critique U.S. law or settle debates about the content of international law. However, that task is complicated when the law of the United States triggers questions about unresolved international law issues. The “terrorism” exception to the FSIA illustrates this complexity. Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary have employed the exception as a politically motivated weapon to target disfavored states, while excluding U.S. allies, politically powerful states, and the United States itself from the reach of the statute. The text of the Fourth Restatement merely restates the U.S. law governing the “terrorism” exception, without identifying international law concerns or analyzing the issues they raise. The chapter, by contrast, offers a critique of the “terrorism” exception, focusing on the statute as written, as amended to reach particular targets, and as applied in practice. A well-crafted statutory exception to sovereign immunity for state human rights violations would be a welcome addition to human rights accountability. The “terrorism” exception falls far short of that goal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document