Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-dtbwl Total loading time: 0.251 Render date: 2022-12-07T15:10:17.373Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Robert B. Ahdieh*
Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Center on Federalism & Intersystemic Governance, Emory University


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
When Subnational Meets International: The Politics and Place of Cities, States, and Provinces in the World
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


* Mr. Barnico did not submit remarks for the Proceedings.

1 488 U.S. 1041 (1992).

2 “In respect of all international negotiations and compacts, and in respect of our foreign relations generally, state lines disappear. As to such purposes the state of New York does not exist.” United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937).

3 See, e.g., Ahdieh, Robert B. Dialectical Regulation, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 863 (2006)Google Scholar; Ahdieh, Robert B. Between Dialogue and Decree: International Review of National Courts, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 2029 (2004)Google Scholar.

4 See Resnik, Judith, Foreign as Domestic Affairs: Rethinking Horizontal Federalism and Foreign Affairs Preemption in Light of Translocal Internationalism, 57 Emory L. J. 31 (2007)Google Scholar.

5 Mr. Hirschhorn served as counsel to the NFTC in National Foreign Trade Council v. Giannoulias, 523 F. Supp. 2d 731 (N.D. 111. 2007), and Mr. Barnico served as counsel to Massachusetts in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000).

6 See Resnik, Judith, Law ‘s Migration: American Exceptionalism, Silent Dialogues, and Federalism ‘s Multiple Points of Entry, 115 Yale L. J. 1564 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See Resnik, supra note 4.

8 I have previously explored such patterns of engagement across jurisdictional lines, under the rubric of “intersys-temic governance.” in such circumstances, I suggest, we may find

a regulatory regime characterized by increased interaction, of a more recurrent nature, and by a close intermingling of regulatory conflict and cooperation. Ultimately, rather than increased regulatory coordination supporting each [jurisdiction’s] pursuit of its own [goals], we may see something akin to joint, or intertwined, regulation of relevant individuals, institutions, or subject-matter. in such regimes, discrete sets of regulatory rules may collapse into a collective whole.

Ahdieh, supra note 3, at 865 (internal citations omitted). Such regimes exhibit a distinct set of institutional characteristics, including (1) a heightened embrace of complexity, as compared to a single-minded emphasis on clarity; (2) a potential for the operational interdependence of regulatory institutions across jurisdictional lines, and (3) a central role for persuasion, rather than coercion, in determining the efficacy of relevant law and regulation. See Ahdieh, Robert B. From Federalism to Intersystemic Governance: The Changing Nature of Modern Jurisdiction, 57 Emory L. J. 1 (2007)Google Scholar. Further, they offer a counterpoint to conventional normative critiques of jurisdictional overlap and regulatory complexity, by exhibiting a heightened capacity to overcome regulatory inertia, to foster innovation, and to facilitate salutary integration. See Ahdieh, supra note 3, at 879-96.

9 I explore and develop this “coordination” account of the relationship of international, national, and subnational institutions and interests in a forthcoming work. See Ahdieh, Robert B. Foreign Affairs, International Law, and the New Federalism: Lessons from Coordination, 73 Mo. L. Rev. 1185 (2008)Google Scholar.

10 United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937).

11 See Ahdieh, supra note 9 (describing State of Illinois’ Sudanese divestment legislation, and Supreme Court’s decision in Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346 (2008), which left compliance with International Court of Justice’s Avena decision to the State of Texas).

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *