Foreign Relations Law

Edited by Curtis A. Bradley, Professor of Law, Duke University, School of Law, US

‘Curt Bradley has collected some of the most influential scholarship, representing diverse perspectives, on US foreign relations law. The compilation should both remind experts of old classics and give newcomers a thoughtfully curated introduction to the doctrines, theories, and debates that define this area of US law. It is a very welcome addition to the scene, by one of the field's leading lights.’

• Volume IContents:AcknowledgmentsIntroduction Curtis A. BradleyPART IHISTORY AND CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE FIELD 1. G. Edward White (1999), ‘The Transformation of the Constitutional Regime of Foreign Relations’, Virginia Law Review, 85 (1), February, 1-1502. Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth (2015), ‘The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law’, Harvard Law Review, 128 (7), 1897–9793. Curtis A. Bradley (2015), ‘Foreign Relations Law and the Purported Shift Away From “Exceptionalism”’, Harvard Law Review, 86 (2), March, 294–304PART IIROLE OF THE COURTS AND DEFERENCE TO THE EXECUTIVE 4. Harold Hongju Koh (1988), ‘Why the President (Almost) Always Wins in Foreign Affairs: Lessons of the Iran-Contra Affair’, Yale Law Journal, 97 (7), June, 1255–13425. Eric A. Posner and Cass R. Sunstein (2007), ‘Chevronizing Foreign Relations Law’, Yale Law Journal, 116 (6), April, 1170–12286. Derek Jinks and Neal Kumar Katyal (2007), ‘Disregarding Foreign Relations Law’, Yale Law Journal, 116 (6), April, 1230–83PART IIIEXECUTIVE POWER OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS7. Michael J. Glennon (1988), ‘Two Views of Presidential Foreign Affairs Power: Little v. Barreme or Curtis-Wright?’, Yale Journal of International Law, 13 (5), November, 5–208. Saikrishna B. Prakash and Michael D. Ramsey (2001), ‘The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs’, Yale Law Journal, 111 (2), November, 231–3569. Curtis A. Bradley and Martin S. Flaherty (2004), ‘Executive Power Essentialism and Foreign Affairs’, Michigan Law Review, 102, February, 545–688 PART IVTREATIES IN DOMESTIC LAW 10. Carlos Manuel Vázquez (1995), ‘The Four Doctrines of Self-Executing Treaties’, American Journal of International Law, 89 (4), February, 695–72311. Curtis A. Bradley (2008), ‘Self-Execution and Treaty Duality’, Supreme Court Review, 1, 131–82[52]IndexVolume IIContents:AcknowledgementsIntroduction An introduction to both volumes by the editor appears in Volume IPART ITREATIES AND FEDERALISM 1. Curtis A. Bradley (1998), ‘The Treaty Power and American Federalism’, Michigan Law Review, 97, 390–4612. Duncan B. Hollis (2006), ‘Executive Federalism: Forging New Federalist Constraints on the Treaty Power’, Southern California Law Review, 79, April, 1327–95PART IIEXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS3. Bruce Ackerman and David Golove (1995), ‘Is NAFTA Constitutional?’, Harvard Law Review, 108 (4), February, 799–929 4. Oona A. Hathaway (2008), ‘Treaties’ End: The Past, Present, and Future of International Lawmaking in the United States’, Yale Law Journal, 117, April, 1236–1372PART IIICUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE U.S. LEGAL SYSTEM5. Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith (1997), ‘Customary International Law As Federal Common Law: A Critique of The Modern Position’, Harvard Law Review, 110 (4), February, 815–766. Harold Hongju Koh (1998), ‘Is International Law Really State Law?’, Harvard Law Review, 111 (7), May, 1824–617. Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith (1998), ‘Federal Courts and The Incorporation of International Law’, Harvard Law Review, 111 (8), June, 2260–75PART IVWAR POWERS 8. John Hart Ely (1988), ‘Suppose Congress Wanted a War Powers Act That Worked’, Columbia Law Review, 88 (7), 1379–14319. John C. Yoo (1996), ‘The Continuation of Politics by Other Means: The Original Understanding of War Powers’, California Law Review, 84 (2), March, 167–30510. Michael D. Ramsey (2002), ‘Textualism and War Powers’, University of Chicago Law Review, 69, October, 1543–1638Index