Restoring The Global Judiciary

Why there should be a larger role for the judiciary in American foreign relations In the past several decades, there has been a growing chorus of voices contending that the Supreme Court and federal judiciary should stay out of foreign affairs and leave the field to Congress and the president. Challenging this idea, Restoring the Global Judiciary argues instead for a robust judicial role in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. With an innovative combination of constitutional history, international relations theory, and legal doctrine, Martin Flaherty demonstrates that the Supreme Court and federal judiciary have the power and duty to apply the law without deference to the other branches. Turning first to the founding of the nation, Flaherty shows that the Constitution’s original commitment to separation of powers was as strong in foreign as domestic matters, not least because the document shifted enormous authority to the new federal government. This initial conception eroded as the nation rose from fledgling state to superpower, fueling the growth of a dangerously formidable executive that today asserts near-plenary foreign affairs authority. Flaherty explores how modern international relations makes the commitment to balance among the branches of government all the more critical and he considers implications for modern controversies that the judiciary will continue to confront. At a time when executive and legislative actions in the name of U.S. foreign policy are only increasing, Restoring the Global Judiciary makes the case for a zealous judicial defense of fundamental rights involving global affairs.

Traditional separation of powers theories assumed that governmental despotism will be prevented by dividing the branches of government which will check one another. Modern governments function with unexpected complicity among these branches. Sometimes one of the branches becomes overwhelming. Other governmental structures, however, tend to mitigate these tendencies to domination. Among other structures courts have achieved considerable autonomy vis-à-vis the traditional political branches of power. They tend to maintain considerable distance from political parties in the name of professionalism and expertise. The conditions and criteria of independence are not clear, and even less clear are the conditions of institutional integrity. Independence (including depolitization) of public institutions is of particular practical relevance in the post-Communist countries where political partisanship penetrated institutions under the single party system. Institutional integrity, particularly in the context of administration of justice, became a precondition for accession to the European Union. Given this practical challenge the present volume is centered around three key areas of institutional integrity, primarily within the administration of justice: First, in a broader theoretical-interdisciplinary context the criteria of institutional independence are discussed. The second major issue is the relation of neutralized institutions to branches of government with reference to accountability. Thirdly, comparative experience regarding judicial independence is discussed to determine techniques to enhance integrity.

This book deals with what the author considers a sorely neglected question, namely the role of the judiciary in states’ foreign policy processes. Eksteen argues that the impact of the judiciary on foreign affairs is understudied and that recognition of its role in foreign affairs is now due. This makes it a ground-breaking scholarly contribution that should first of all prove of value to students, scholars, researchers and practitioners in the two broad fields of politics and law for the wide scope of issues it covers and the very comprehensive reference lists it contains. Secondly, professionals working within politics, including members of the legislatures of the United States, the European Union and South Africa, as well as members of the judiciaries there, should find this book of benefit. A detailed examination has been undertaken of the role of the United States Supreme Court, the two high courts in South Africa, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the European Court of Justice of the European Union, in foreign affairs. The author substantiates the unmistakable fact that these Courts have become involved in and influence foreign affairs. Furthermore, that they have not shied away from using their judicial authority when dealing with cases touching on foreign affairs and especially presidential overreach. The lack of recognition of the judiciary’s role in foreign affairs is still noticeable in Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) literature. This book concludes that FPA has to accept and give proper recognition to the judiciary and its increasing relevance in foreign affairs. Dr. Riaan Eksteen is a Former South African Ambassador residing in Namibia; from 1968-1973 he served at the South African Embassy in Washington D.C.; between 1976-1994, he subsequently served as Ambassador and Head of Mission at the U.N. in New York (1976-81), in Namibia (1990-91), at the U.N. in Geneva (1992-94), and in Turkey, with accreditation also to Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (1995-97). He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Johannesburg in October 2018.

Highlighting the close relationship between foreign relations law and international law, this impressive book places parliament and domestic courtsÕ engagement with treaties at the heart of its inquiry. It presents a timely assessment of the impact that different rules of constitutional law have on parliamentary and judicial approaches to treaties in four different states (Germany, India, South Africa and the US), thereby incorporating valuable comparative dimensions.

"These essays provide a comprehensive survey of the most significant issues in contemporary U.S. foreign relations law. They respond to the recently published Fourth Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law. They review the context and assumptions on which that work relied, criticize that work for its analysis and conclusions, and explore topics left out of the published work that need research and development. Collectively the essays provide an authoritative study of the issues generating controversy today as those most likely to emerge in the coming decade. The book is organized in three parts. The first provides a historical context for the law of foreign relations from the beginning of the twentieth century, when the United States first envisioned itself as a peer and competitor of the major European powers, to the present, when the United States, although a hegemon, faces deep unrest and uncertainty with respect to its position in the world. The second and largest part looks at contested issues in foreign relations law today, from the status of international law as federal domestic law to presidential authority to make, unmake, and apply international agreements to the immunity from domestic lawsuits of international organizations and foreign government officials. The last considers what this body of law might look like in the future as well as the difficulties raised by using the Restatement process as a way of contributing to the law's development. These essays for the most part concentrate on U.S. law, but the problems they face are common to all democratic republics that seek to reconcile international relations with the rule of law"--

This book examines the responsibility of judges of domestic courts following unconstitutional usurpation of power of government (coups d’état). It explores judges’ liability for failing to discharge their judicial duty independently and impartially, and the criminality of usurpers and their accomplices and collaborators for their violation of fundamental rights and freedoms or commission of crimes of international concern. Written by a highly regarded non-Western author, the book is coherent and meticulously researched, covering an approach to coups in an insightful and fascinating fashion. It includes a sophisticated and thorough analysis of the relevant comparative jurisprudence of domestic and international courts, with concrete examples of the best practices among decisions of domestic courts in countries that have experienced coups d’état. With an increasing global interest in the phenomenon of coups, democratic backsliding and the place and role of the judiciary as the only hope to rein in acts of unconstitutional usurpation of power, the book will be essential reading for members of the legal profession, those cherishing democracy as well as students and researchers in constitutional law, law and political science, public international law, international human rights law, international criminal law, regime changes, transitional justice and international organizations.

The Gambia opened a new chapter in her history after 22 years of authoritarian rule under former dictator Yahya Jammeh, heralding the promise of a ‘New Gambia.’ The country is at a critical juncture in its transition from Jammeh’s autocratic rule to a fully-fledged democracy. The ambitious transitional processes include the Truth Reparations and Reconciliation Commission to create an official record of past abuses and crimes, the Constitutional Review Commission to draft a new Constitution, and the permanent National Human Rights Commission to build a human rights culture. The Gambia in transition: Towards a new constitutional order is a diverse collection of timely, rigorous, and insightful essays on human rights, constitutional reform, rule of law and democratic governance. It serves as an important reference for academics, policymakers, researchers, civil society organisations, human rights defenders, learners, and the public at large.

This eye-opening dispatch on the culture war traces the dangerous influence of overreaching courts around the world.