Publicist

When the Smoke Clears at CIA

By

John Radsan[*]

[ PDF version ] [ Go to comments ]

 

CIA officers love conspiracy theories by which each layer of truth reveals another. But sometimes they miss things that are obvious outside the shadows.

Some officers may distrust their new director, Leon Panetta. Anything is possible to a paranoid mind accustomed to dangles, false flags, and counter-surveillance. James Angleton, the legendary head of CIA counter-intelligence, believed to his grave in 1987 that the KGB defector, Yuri Nosenko, was a double agent. In his own wilderness of mirrors, Angleton argued to the disbelief of another CIA Director that the proof Nosenko was a double was his giving us so much valuable information. Angleton said the KGB was doing its best to establish Nosenko’s bona fides, tricking us into believing that the Soviets had nothing to do with President Kennedy’s assassination. Nosenko’s vital piece of disinformation was his claim to the CIA that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a Soviet agent.

Stefan A. Riesenfeld Symposium 2009: The United States and the International Criminal Court: The Bush Administration’s Approach and a Way Forward Under the Obama Administration

By

Elise Keppler*

[ PDF version ] [ Go to comments ]

 

Introduction

In the Bush Administration’s range of policies that had negative ramifications for the promotion and respect for international human rights, its approach to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was of particular significance. What was striking was not the Administration’s position on the United States’ becoming part of the court­—the Clinton Administration also had concerns over joining—but rather the intense, virulent assault that the Bush Administration advanced on the Court. Despite official claims to the contrary, the Bush Administration’s approach, which was far more strident during its first term, appeared to be an intensive effort to cripple the Court.

The Bush Administration’s attacks on the ICC did not fundamentally or irrevocably alter the legal landscape of international human rights and justice or the advancement of the ICC’s mission or work. It did, however, have a major impact on U.S. credibility to promote these crucial goals.

It is vital that the Obama Administration chart a different course. U.S. ratification of the Rome Statute is an important goal. However, the Administration should also take a number of steps to develop a constructive relationship with the ICC long before a decision on ratification may become ripe. Efforts to establish a more positive relationship with the Court will help the U.S. repair relationships with its allies and reassume its role as a global leader in advancing human rights and international justice.

Stefan A. Riesenfeld Symposium 2009: Remarks on State Courts and Transnational Law: Institutional Constraints and Transformative Opportunities for Economic and Social Rights

 

By

Martha F. Davis*

[ PDF version ] [ Go to comments ]

Introduction

Recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked, “I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.” Calling the controversy a “passing phase,” she asked "why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?”[1]

The debate referenced by Justice Ginsburg concerning federal judicial citation of transnational law is well-known.[2] Indeed, the issue recently resurfaced following the nomination of Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as the State Department’s Legal Adviser. Fearing that Koh may be headed toward a future judicial appointment, conservative media and members of Congress expressed concerns that he may be amenable to imposing “foreign” law on domestic litigants.[3]

This is an important debate with significant stakes. Nevertheless, I would like to put the federal “brouhaha” to one side and instead explore the role of transnational law in state jurisprudence, particularly with respect to economic and social rights. First, I will contrast the institutional context for state judicial decisionmaking with the federal context. Second, I will look at what is actually happening in state courts to determine whether state courts are doing anything differently with transnational law than their federal counterparts. Finally, I will look to the future to predict what we can expect from state courts in the coming decades.

"Do You Recognize This?" Domestication of Foreign-Country Money Judgments in California

By   

Neil A.F. Popović*

[ PDF version ] [ Go to comments ]

Introduction

In some cases, obtaining a judgment signals the end of litigation. In other cases, a judgment can be just the beginning. Falling in the second category are cases where the judgment is for money and it comes from a court in a foreign country. Turning a foreign country money judgment into actual relief involves at least two procedural steps: (i) recognition; and (ii) enforcement. This article focuses on recognition.

Recognition in California is governed by statute: the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act ("UFCMJRA" or "revised Act") for recognition actions filed on or after January 1, 2008; and the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act ("UFMJRA" or "original Act") for actions filed before January 1, 2008. Once recognized, a foreign-country judgment is treated like a domestic judgment, and thus becomes enforceable under California's generally applicable Enforcement of Judgments Law.[1]

For the unfamiliar, the road to recognition can be tricky to navigate. Two recent developments—one statutory and the other judicial—help clarify some areas of lingering uncertainty: (a) California's adoption in 2007 of the revised Act;[2] and (b) the Supreme Court of California's 2008 decision in Manco Contracting Co. v. Bezdikian.[3]

“How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory”: A Panel Discussion on Professor Andrew Guzman’s Book

[ PDF version ] [ Go to comments ]

Welcome: Louise Gibbons, Editor-in-Chief, Berkeley Journal of International Law (BJIL)

My name is Louise Gibbons and I am the Editor-in-Chief of the Berkeley Journal of International Law. Thank you all for coming.

Today, we are having a panel on Professor Andrew Guzman’s book “How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory.” Our moderator is Professor Buxbaum of Berkeley Law. We will be publishing the discussion today, as well as a book review written by Harlan Cohen of the University of Georgia, in BJIL’s upcoming issue this spring. I would like to extend a special thanks to the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and Law at Berkeley Law for sponsoring this event as well as to our journal’s book review editor, Kate Apostolova, for planning today’s discussion.

So, with that, I think we will just go ahead and get started and let Professor Buxbaum introduce the panelists. Thanks for coming.