tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post977755737610597824..comments2024-03-06T10:16:40.696+00:00Comments on PhD studies in human rights: I'm Not Making this UpWilliam A. Schabashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552332133145290879noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-71859427879011183842010-11-05T14:02:42.922+00:002010-11-05T14:02:42.922+00:00On the issue of the Save Our State Amendment (the ...On the issue of the Save Our State Amendment (the acronym SOS may be a “smoking sign” that the party has definitely run wild) there is an interesting article in the last newsletter of the American Society of International Law (available at http://www.asil.org/files/Newsletter2010Q3Final.pdf). <br />Writing before the adoption of SOS, David Caron believes “the primary legal consequence of the SOS amendment if adopted will be increased court costs, increased delay, and possibly undesirable outcomes. Given that federal law (and its instructions to judges to refer to international or foreign law) will have supremacy over inconsistent state law in many situations and given that even under Oklahoma law it will be arguable that a state court judge is not violating the SOS amendment – because he or she is in fact only applying federal or state law that instructs him or her to use foreign or international law – a primary consequence of the SOS amendment may simply be increased litigation and consequent costs and delay."<br /><br />In illustrating the orientation of the U.S. Supreme Court, Caron cites Abbot v. Abbot in which, this past spring, six justices of the Court citing to a treaty and to court decisions of Canada, France, Australia, England, Germany, South Africa, Scotland, and Israel held that a minor was taken to Texas from Chile wrongfully under the Convention on International Child Abduction. The decision was written by Justice Kennedy, and, quite significantly, included Justices Alito, Roberts, and Scalia – three justices usually silent about foreign or international law.<br /><br />I believe Caron is correct in attributing SOS to the general distrust by the American public of the use of international and foreign law by American courts. He concludes that a “very substantial project of engagement” with the public is required. <br /><br />As the majority in Oklahoma proved, it seems that the “new era of engagement” with respect to international law and international institutions that President Obama talked about, is still far from reality.Rita Jardimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06637756972594922476noreply@blogger.com