Judith Resnik (Yale Law School) has posted "Law's Migration: American Exceptionalism, Silent Dialogues, and Federalism's Multiple Ports of Entry" (YLS Public Law Working Paper No. 110, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 115, May 2006) on SSRN. Here's the abstract:
Legal theorists are engaged in understanding the legitimacy of techniques by which principles of rights-holding travel across borders. Sovereigntists in the United States object to that migration. The history of both protest about and the incorporation of foreign law provides important lessons for contemporary debates.
Through examples from conflicts about slavery, the rights of women, and the creation of the United Nations, I chart the anxiety occasioned when American law interacts with human rights movements. At times, through silent absorption rather than express citation, some of the foreign sources become lost in translation, and the new rights become constitutive elements of American identity.
To conceive of these debates as engaging only questions of national boundaries is, however, to miss the reliance on federalism as a justification for declining to participate in transnational rights work. Yet America's federalist structure also serves as a path for the movement of international rights across borders. As illustrated by the adoption by mayors, city councils, state legislatures, and state judges of transnational rights stemming from the U.N. Charter, the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the debate about transnationalism is deeply democratic, with significant popular engagement reframing American norms. Such local government actions require revisiting legal doctrines that presume the exclusivity of national power in foreign affairs - as that which is foreign is domesticated through several routes.
Legal theorists are engaged in understanding the legitimacy of techniques by which principles of rights-holding travel across borders. Sovereigntists in the United States object to that migration. The history of both protest about and the incorporation of foreign law provides important lessons for contemporary debates.
Through examples from conflicts about slavery, the rights of women, and the creation of the United Nations, I chart the anxiety occasioned when American law interacts with human rights movements. At times, through silent absorption rather than express citation, some of the foreign sources become lost in translation, and the new rights become constitutive elements of American identity.
To conceive of these debates as engaging only questions of national boundaries is, however, to miss the reliance on federalism as a justification for declining to participate in transnational rights work. Yet America's federalist structure also serves as a path for the movement of international rights across borders. As illustrated by the adoption by mayors, city councils, state legislatures, and state judges of transnational rights stemming from the U.N. Charter, the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the debate about transnationalism is deeply democratic, with significant popular engagement reframing American norms. Such local government actions require revisiting legal doctrines that presume the exclusivity of national power in foreign affairs - as that which is foreign is domesticated through several routes.
Posts
I think resnik has some flexible view on migration law.
ReplyDeleteDUI Attorney Portland