FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W20592607> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W20592607 startingPage "423" @default.
• W20592607 abstract "I am delighted to be here today, and I thank the Federalist Society for inviting us to discuss such a timely and engaging topic. I am also honored to be here with Judge Wald, who has rendered such distinguished and collegial service to the federal bench. A ceremony dedicating Judge Wald's portrait at the D.C. Circuit this past month demonstrated the esteem and affection in which she is held by all who served with her. The explicit use of international law in judicial decisions is increasing. More importantly, I think, the nature of the reliance is changing. The Court has recently turned to foreign courts to support key positions in major rulings on wholly domestic social issues. These changes in the way that the Court has used foreign precedents and the frequency with which it has done so are receiving increased attention. Throughout our history, the use of foreign precedents to resolve purely domestic constitutional questions has been rare. In several cases, the Court even rejected the relevance of a comparative law perspective to constitutional decision-making. In Stanford v. Kentucky, when faced with substantial evidence that other countries condemned the execution of minors, the Court emphasized that it is conceptions of decency that are dispositive for interpreting the Eighth Amendment. (1) In Printz v. United States, the Court rejected the dissent's argument that other nations' experiences with federalism should cast an empirical light on the consequences of different solutions to a common legal problem. (2) And in Raines v. Byrd, the Court denied standing to congressmen challenging the Line Item Veto Act. After noting that other countries permit such suits, the Court stated that the practices of foreign nations were irrelevant to its decision. (3) But in the past two terms, the Court has increasingly turned to foreign sources, and has sometimes used them to support contestable propositions of constitutional law. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court reversed its perspective in Stanford v. Kentucky, relied upon the observation that other nations overwhelmingly disapprove[] of executing mentally retarded offenders, and found the practice to be unconstitutional. (4) In Grutter v. Bollinger, a concurring opinion expressly relied upon several international conventions and treaties to support the proposition in the majority opinion that race-conscious measures should last as long as necessary to achieve their intended objectives. (5) And in holding in Lawrence v. Texas that laws sanctioning certain intimate conduct in same-sex relationships violate the Constitution, the Court cited a British Parliament report, a Parliamentary Act, and a decision by the European Court of Human Rights. (6) As Professor Mark Tushnet has recognized, never before in our history has the Court relied so directly on foreign precedents to support a position material to the Court's holding. (7) One may agree or disagree with the result in these cases. The point here is not result, but methodology. One cannot dispute the unmistakable trend towards relying on international practice to resolve important domestic constitutional questions. It is this trend that gives me pause. To begin with, certain principles are clear. In an age of increasing globalization, governments interact more and face common challenges more than ever before. So of course we have much to learn from other countries, although, I might add, learning from the experience of other states and nations is at least as much a legislative as a judicial enterprise. I am proud to serve on the Judicial Outreach Advisory Board of the American Society of International Law. Its Handbook rightly notes that whether it is the integrated international economy and trade disciplines, nuclear power and proliferation, space exploration and computer applications, environmental pollution and habitat degradation, or intellectual properties and entertainment, we are gradually living in a shrinking, interdependent world. …" @default.
• W20592607 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W20592607 creator A5002252103 @default.
• W20592607 date "2004-03-22" @default.
• W20592607 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W20592607 title "The Use of International Law in Judicial Decisions" @default.
• W20592607 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W20592607 type Work @default.
• W20592607 sameAs 20592607 @default.
• W20592607 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W20592607 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W20592607 hasAuthorship W20592607A5002252103 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C2776453310 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C46415393 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C523173360 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C533735693 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W20592607 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C144024400 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C17744445 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C185592680 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C199539241 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C2776453310 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C2778272461 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C46415393 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C523173360 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C533735693 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C55493867 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C87501996 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C94625758 @default.
• W20592607 hasConceptScore W20592607C98184364 @default.
• W20592607 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W20592607 hasLocation W205926071 @default.
• W20592607 hasOpenAccess W20592607 @default.
• W20592607 hasPrimaryLocation W205926071 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W130702850 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W1513139777 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W1565435350 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W2009811765 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W2045156028 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W2299570473 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W237609228 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W257210011 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W25875716 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W28231646 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W285559923 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W311632158 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W3121572000 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W3123320704 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W3123666265 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W3123850471 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W3124196745 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W3158001286 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W316343745 @default.
• W20592607 hasRelatedWork W338120031 @default.
• W20592607 hasVolume "27" @default.
• W20592607 isParatext "false" @default.
• W20592607 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W20592607 magId "20592607" @default.
• W20592607 workType "article" @default.