1Spiro, Peter J., The New Sovereigntists: American Exceptionalism and Its False Prophets, 79Foreign Aff., Nov.–Dec. 2000, at 9, 13.
2 Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132 S.Ct. 1421, 1427 (2012).
3 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
4 Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006); Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008).
5Cf.Spiro, Peter J., Sovereigntism’s Twilight, 31Berkeley J. Int’l L.307, 308, 309–10 (2013) (making this claim about a different book); see alsoKumm, Mattias, Constitutionalism and the Cosmopolitan State, 20Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. (forthcoming 2014) (describing Bradley and other new sovereigntists as settling into a “dogmatic slumber of self-congratulatory hubris with regard to the achievements of national constitutionalism, while promoting scepticism about international law”).
6Kingsbury, Benedict, Legal Positivism as Normative Politics: International Society, Balance of Power and Lassa Oppenheim’s Positive International Law, 13Eur. J. Int’l L.401, 435 (2002) (footnote omitted).
7See, e.g., Weil, Prosper, Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?, 77AJIL413 (1983).
8Medellín, 552 U.S. 491.
9See alsoBradley, Curtis A., Self-Execution and Treaty Duality, 2008Sup. Ct. Rev.131.
10see Koh, Harold Hongju, Transnational Public Law Litigation, 100Yale L.J.2347, 2349 n.10 (1991).
11 This discussion is limited to formal international law—treaties and custom. Many argue that soft or informal law and governance are displacing formal international law. See, e.g., Spiro, supra note 5, at 315– 18; Krisch, Nico, The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods, 108AJIL1 (2014). Bradley’s book focuses on formal sources of law, as does this review.
12 As Bradley mentions, however, the Supreme Court has not been receptive to federalism arguments in the context of sole executive agreements (pp. 58–61, 88, 92). As this review went to press, the Court was poised to decide Bond v. United States, in which the Court may impose federalism limits on Congress’s power to implement treaties.
13 Gordon Silverstein, Law’S Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, And Kills Politics 9 (2009).
14 Koh, supra note 10, at 2364.
15Friedman, Barry, The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution364–65 (2009); Rosenberg, Gerald N., The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?420–29 (2d ed.2008).
16see Greenhouse, Linda & Siegal, Reva B., Before (and After) Roe v. Wade: New Questions About Backlash, 120Yale L.J. 2028 (2011).
17 Friedman, supra note 15.
18Cf. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734–35 (2004); Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 355 (2006).
19 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1668–69(2013); id. at 1677–78 (Breyer, J., concurring); Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 516 –17 (2008).
20 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.; Greece intervening), 2012 ICJ Rep. 99 (Feb. 3).
21see Nesi, Giuseppe, The Quest for a ‘Full’ Execution of the ICJ Judgment in Germany v. Italy, 11J. Int’l Crim. Just.185 (2013).
24 Filártiga v. Pen˜a-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980); Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
25 Koh, supra note 10, at 2366–67.
26Id. at 2371.
27 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
28 Alexander M. Bickel, The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress (1970).
29see Thomas M. Franck, Political Questions, Judicial Answers: Does the Rule of Law Apply to Foreign Affairs? (1992).
30 Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 512–14 (2008); Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1667 (2013).
31See Agora: Reflections on Kiobel, 107 AJIL 829 (2013); Wuerth, Ingrid, Case Report: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.: The Supreme Court and the Alien Tort Statute,107AJIL601, 620 (2013).
32see Wuerth, Ingrid, International Law in Domestic Courts and the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State Case,13Melb. J. Int’l L.819 (2012); Anthea Roberts, State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Hybrid Theory of Interdependent Rights and Shared Interpretive Authority, 55 Harv. Int’l L.J. (forthcoming 2014); Kammerentscheidungen des Bundesverfassungs gerichts [Chamber Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court], June 30, 2009, Case No. 2 BvE 2/08, 9 BVerfGK 174 (Ger.); Paul B. Stephan III, Sovereign Immunity and the International Court of Justice: The State System Triumphant (Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2012-47), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2137805.
33 Kingsbury, supra note 6, at 402.
34Id. at 436.
35 Brad R. Roth, Sovereign Equality and Moral Disagreement:Premises of A Pluralist International Legal Order 300 (2011).
36Benvenisti, Eyal, Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders, 107AJIL295, 300 (2013); see also Michael Ignatieff, Intervention and State Failure, Dissent, Winter 2002, at 115, 119 (“[S]tate sovereignty, instead of being the enemy of human rights, has to be seen as their basic precondition.”).
37 Regina v. Bartle, ex parte Pinochet,  3 W.L.R. 1456 (H.L.), reprinted in 37 ILM 1302 (1998), aff’d & rev’d in part,  2 W.L.R. 827 (H.L.), reprinted in 38 ILM 581 (1999); see alsoWuerth, Ingrid, Pinochet‘s Legacy Reassessed, 106AJIL731 (2012).
38 TVPA, supra note 23; see Naomi Roht-Ar-riaza, The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights (2005).
39see Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013); Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 714 (2004); Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,  UKHL 26,  1 A.C. 270 (H.L.) (appeal taken from Eng.).
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.