Tulane University Journal Publishing
Not a member yet
2980 research outputs found
Sort by
The Left, the Right, and the Prostitute: The Making of U.S. Antitrafficking in Persons Policy
Get PDFN/
Halpern v. Toronto (City): Same-Sex Marriages: Who Should Make the Decision in a “Free and Democratic Society”?
Get PDFN/
Key Policy Issues of the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade
Get PDFN/
Abortion in Ireland: An Analysis of the Legal Transformation Resulting from Membership in the European Union
Get PDFN/
Some Key Jurisprudential Issues of the Twenty-First Century
Get PDFHow cases are decided by courts depends not only on judges’ views of the merits of the controversy but also on what they conceive their proper function to be and even on their views on the appropriate style and form of judicial decisionmaking. Because common-law judges use different techniques to interpret written instruments, such as treaties, than do civil-law judges, the same treaty provision may be interpreted differently in a common-law jurisdiction than it would in a civil-law jurisdiction. Similarly, because common-law appellate judges have traditionally taken a different view of the scope of discretion to be left to trial court judges than have civil-law judges, attempts to subject decisions rendered by judges trained in one of these traditions to review by supranational courts largely staffed by judges trained in the other tradition have presented some unexpected problems. Professor Christie discusses some recent situations in which both these sorts of situations have already arisen and can be expected to arise more frequently in the future with the increasing globalization of the world’s economy. On the one hand, globalization would seem to require harmonization of legal outcomes; on the other the democratic urge encapsulated in the notion of subsidiarity seems to require deference by supranational courts to the judgments of national courts even if it means toleration of results that would not have been reached by a supranational court if it were to have decided the case on the basis of its own decisionmaking traditions. The conflict between these two imperatives is not easily resolved
A Need for Compliance: The Shrimp Turtle Case and the Conflict Between the WTO and the United States Court of International Trade
Get PDFThe shrimp/turtle conflict waged in the World Trade Organization and the Court of International Trade represents a recent example of the failure of the United States to comply with a respected, multilateral body opinion. The Court of International Trade’s refusal to apply the Charming Betsy principle in this and several other past cases involving World Trade Organization Panel or Appellate Body opinions is one of the largest impediments to U.S. compliance. This Comment explores the shrimp/turtle cases in depth and suggests alternative measures that the Court of International Trade should have taken to allow for compliance with the World Trade Organization Appellate Body decision
Prevention and Settlement of International Trade Disputes Between the European Union and the United States
Get PDFThis Essay reflects recent international trade disputes between the European Community and the United States and classifies these disputes according to their characteristic elements in order to elaborate more effective strategies for the prevention or settlement of future disputes. The so far twelve GATT and WTO panel, appellate, and arbitration reports on the European Community’s import restrictions for bananas could have been avoided if, in the more than forty complaints before the European Community Court of Justice and in the numerous national court proceedings against the same import restrictions on bananas, the judges would have construed and applied European Community law in conformity with the precise and unconditional GATT/WTO obligations of the EC. The settlement of the EC-U.S. disputes over U.S. trade sanctions under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, as well as over the discriminatory government procurement practices by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vis-à-vis persons doing business with Myanmar, illustrate the importance of dispute prevention strategies. WTO panel proceedings are also sub-optimal means for the settlement of disputes over nondiscriminatory health protection measures, such as the EC import restrictions for hormone-fed beef and genetically modified organisms. This Essay concludes with proposals for EC-U.S. initiatives to strengthen dispute prevention strategies
A Combined Discovery Rule and Demand and Refusal Rule for New York: The Need for Equitable Consistency in International Cases of Recovery of Stolen Art and Cultural Property
Get PDFThe problem of stolen art and cultural property has become more frequent and more international in scope in recent years. When stolen art is actually located—an event quite rare in itself—the ensuing conflict is often one between two innocent parties: the original owner whose property was wrongfully taken, and an innocent purchaser who believed she made a bona fide purchase and subsequently obtained good title. With many different jurisdictions presiding over these international disputes over the recovery of stolen art, the result has been a national common law marred with inconsistencies in how these cases are resolved. Despite international efforts to promote uniformity in national domestic laws relating to recovery of stolen artwork and cultural property, the fact remains that each nation, and in the United States each state, has its own rules regarding bona fide purchasers and statutes of limitations. A complex problem arises, therefore, especially in American courts, where there is little consistency.
This Comment proposes a solution to this complex issue by examining the case law in this area and analyzing the shortcomings of two doctrines—the discovery rule and the demand and refusal rule—when applied by themselves without taking into account other considerations. The premise of this Comment is that the two doctrines should be combined in order to create a more consistent and equitable law with specific focus on the recent New York case Greek Orthodox Patriarchate v. Christie’s, Inc. In this case, the court granted summary judgment and did not resolve several factual aspects of the case. The premise of this Comment is that courts should not strictly apply one rule over the other, but rather should take into consideration all factors of each individual case, and apply a combination of the rules in order to come up with the most fair result