Congress has overridden President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). JASTA has been rightly criticized by other commentators (for example here and here); my purpose here is to analyze several of its important features and to raise some questions about how they will be interpreted.
Ingrid Wuerth is a Professor at Vanderbilt Law School. She is a leading scholar of foreign affairs and international law in domestic courts, whose broad intellectual interests also include the German Constitution, comparative constitutional law, and methodology. She has written extensively on these topics, including articles published in the Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern and Notre Dame law reviews, the Harvard, Melbourne, Vanderbilt and Virginia journals of international law, and the American Journal of International Law. Professor Wuerth joined Vanderbilt’s law faculty in 2007, was appointed director of Vanderbilt’s International Legal Studies Program in fall 2009, and has won several teaching awards. After law school, she clerked for Judge Jan E. DuBois of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for Judge Jane R. Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and practiced at Dechert in Philadelphia. She is on academic leave this semester and is living in Berlin, Germany.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Whatever economic problems China and Russia may be experiencing, the foreign policy of both countries of growing importance to global peace and security. Russia’s military intervention in Syria and Ukraine have changed the political and military calculus in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea has made that region into a global hotspot of interstate conflict, one that is unlikely to be diffused by the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s decision in Philippines v. China.
There is a downturn in civil and political rights in many of the world’s largest and most geopolitically significant countries, especially Russia, China, and Turkey, but also other countries such as Venezuela. These developments have broad potential consequences for international law. In particular, they have implications for: the success of regional human rights treaties and courts; the “right to democracy”; the meaning of sovereignty; and the overall effectiveness of international law.
As expected, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Sachs v. OBB Personenverkehr that OBB, a railroad owned by the Austrian government, was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Russia’s renewed emphasis on defeating ISIS in light of the Metrojet bombing, in conjunction with ISIS attacks in Paris, has a number of international law implications.
Both Jack Goldsmith and Harold Koh have recently written about the constitutionality of congressional restrictions on the transfer of prisoners. The President’s veto last week of the NDAA was based in part on his objection t
How does the Supreme Court’s October Term 2015 look so far with respect to foreign relations and national security cases?