Curtis A Bradley
Biographic Data
| ID | 1035677 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Curtis A Bradley |
| GIVEN NAMES | Curtis A |
| FAMILY NAME | Bradley |
| SIGNATURE | BRADLEY C A |
| AFFILIATIONS | Williams & Associates |
| ORCID | 0000-0003-2941-7259 |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 26 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 18 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 25 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 1 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1998 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2024 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
Historical Gloss and Foreign Affairs: Constitutional Authority in Practice
A new interpretation of the constitutional law of foreign affairs, as it has been developed throughout its history by presidents and by Congress. In the more than 230 years since the Constitution took effect, the constitutional law governing the conduct of foreign affairs has evolved significantly. But that evolution did not come through formal amendments or Supreme Court rulings. Rather, the law has been defined by the practices of Congress and …
Standing and Probabilistic Injury
Standing to sue often turns on questions of probability. For example, public law plaintiffs must show that they are likely to be affected by allegedly unlawful government surveillance or environmental policies, and consumers may wish to sue private defendants over false credit reporting or data breaches that may or may not cause them financial or reputational harm in the future. This Article offers a framework for resolving a wide range of these …
Restating US Foreign Relations Law: Lessons from the Treaty Materials
This short article responds to observations made by Alina Miron and Paolo Palchetti about the treaty sections of the Restatement of the Law (Fourth): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. We describe the nature of the Restatement process and explain why the choices made in the Restatement (Fourth) were more constrained than what might be suggested by Miron and Palchetti’s critique. We also engage with some of their specific observations…
Conflicting Approaches to the U.S. Common Law of Foreign Official Immunity
For more than a decade, U.S. courts have struggled to develop a common law immunity regime to govern suits brought against foreign government officials, and they are now divided on a number of issues, including the extent to which they should defer to the executive branch and whether to recognize a jus cogens exception. This Editorial Comment considers a more conceptual division in the courts, between an “effect-of-judgment” approach that would c…
Introduction to “The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic”
This introduction provides an overview of thirteen essays selected in response to a worldwide call for papers for an Agora on “The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic.” The essays in the Agora consider some of the most pressing challenges, as well as potential opportunities, that COVID-19 is creating for the international legal order. The specific topics addressed include the role of international organizations such as the World Hea…
The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law
This book ambitiously seeks to lay the groundwork for a new field of study and teaching known as “comparative foreign relations law.” Comparative foreign relations law compares and contrasts how nations, and also supranational entities such as the European Union, structure their decisions about matters such as entering into and exiting from international agreements, engaging with international institutions, and using military force, as well as ho…
Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law
Introduction to the Symposium on the Present and Future of Foreign Official Immunity
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button
Treaty Exit in the United States: Insights from the United Kingdom or South Africa
Courts in the United Kingdom and South Africa have recently issued important rulings that have constrained the executive's authority to withdraw from treaties in those countries. This essay considers whether these rulings might offer insights for treaty exit issues in the United States. We first provide an overview of U.S. law and practice regarding the termination of international agreements. We next summarize the U.K. and South African decision…
Foreign Relations Law as a Field of Study
This essay offers a working definition of “foreign relations law,” describes its various sources, and distinguishes it from international law. It also provides some comparative illustrations of this law and notes some reasons for both commonalities and differences in this law across national jurisdictions. Finally, it discusses the growing emergence of foreign relations law as a field of study outside the United States
Introduction to Symposium on Comparative Foreign Relations Law
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button
Obama’s Aumf Legacy
In the fifteen years since the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was enacted on September 18, 2001, the Taliban has been removed from power but not eliminated; Osama Bin Laden has been killed and the senior leaders of Al Qaeda as of 9/11 have been captured, killed, or driven underground, although Al Qaeda remains a threat; numerous Al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up around the globe, most notably in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia; a…
President Obama's War Powers Legacy
The five essays in this Agora, written by Jack Goldsmith and myself, Ashley Deeks, Ryan Goodman, Rebecca Ingber, and Michael Ramsey, consider the legal legacy of the Obama administration concerning the use of military force, with respect to both domestic law and international law. Prominent developments during the Obama administration relating to war powers include the administration's defense in habeas litigation of its authority to detain membe…
Introduction to Agora, Part II: Reflections on Zivotofsky v. Kerry
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (Zivotofsky II). 1 As we explained in our introduction to the first part of the Agora published in July, Zivotofsky II is a significant separation-of-powers decision concerning the exclusivity of the President's authority to recognize foreign sovereigns and their territory. 2 The essays in the first part of the Agora, by Curtis
Historical Gloss, the Recognition Power, and Judicial Review
The U.S. executive branch has long declined to recognize any country’s sovereignty over Jerusalem, insisting that the matter be worked out through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The U.S. Congress, by contrast, has tended to support Israeli sovereignty over the city. In 2002, Congress enacted the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Section 214(d) of which provides that, “[f]or purposes of the registration o…
Introduction to Agora: Reflections on Zivotofsky v. Kerry
AJIL Unbound is pleased to publish an Agora on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (Zivotofsky II). 1 This highly anticipated separation-of-powers decision addresses the validity of congressional action alleged to intrude upon the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. The petitioner in Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem and wished to have his birthplace designated on his passport as "Israel." Because th…
Federalism, Treaty Implementation, and Political Process: Bond V. United States
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Bond, Clear Statement Requirements, and Political Process
In its decision yesterday in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court carefully avoided addressing either the constitutional scope of the treaty power or the scope of Congress's constitutional authority to implement treaties under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The decision is nevertheless important in holding that a federalism-based clear statement requirement, which was originally developed in the context of purely domestic legislation, appli…
Attorney General Bradford’s Opinion and the Alien Tort Statute
In debates over the scope of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), one historical document has played an especially prominent role. That document is a short opinion by U.S. Attorney General William Bradford, issued in the summer of 1795, concerning the involvement of U.S. citizens in an attack by a French fleet on a British colony in Sierra Leone. In the opinion, Bradford concluded that “[s]o far ... as the transactions complained of originated or took p…
Intent, Presumptions, and Non-Self-Executing Treaties
Ever since the Supreme Court’s 1829 decision in Foster v. Neilson , it has been settled that some treaties ratified by the United States are “non-self-executing” and thus are not enforceable in U.S. courts unless implemented by Congress. Despite its pedigree, both the theory behind the self-execution doctrine and its mechanics have long befuddled courts and commentators. There is significant uncertainty, for example, concerning the materials that…
The Military Commissions Act, Habeas Corpus, and the Geneva Conventions
Many commentators argued that a central problem with the government’s actions after the attacks of September 11, 2001, was executive unilateralism. For example, in criticizing President George W. Bush’s initial effort to establish military commissions to try terrorists, Professors Neal Katyal and Laurence Tribe argued that, “in the absence of an emergency that threatens truly irreparable damage to the nation or its Constitution, that Constitution…
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669. United States Supreme Court, June 28, 2006. In Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon , a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and that U.S. states may apply their regular procedural default rules to bar claims brought under Article 36. The Court reached the latter conclusion despite …
Foreign Affairs and Domestic Reform
My Prerogative
Breard, Our Dualist Constitution, and the Internationalist Conception
In its decision last Term in 'Breard v. Greene,' the Supreme Court refused to stay the execution of Angel Breard, an inmate in Virginia, even though Virginia had violated a treaty on consular relations and the International Court of Justice had ordered the United States to "take all measures at its disposal" to stay the execution. The international law academy has been heavily critical of the Supreme Court's decision and other aspects of the Unit…
Obama’s Aumf Legacy
In the fifteen years since the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was enacted on September 18, 2001, the Taliban has been removed from power but not eliminated; Osama Bin Laden has been killed and the senior leaders of Al Qaeda as of 9/11 have been captured, killed, or driven underground, although Al Qaeda remains a threat; numerous Al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up around the globe, most notably in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia; a…
Intent, Presumptions, and Non-Self-Executing Treaties
Ever since the Supreme Court’s 1829 decision in Foster v. Neilson , it has been settled that some treaties ratified by the United States are “non-self-executing” and thus are not enforceable in U.S. courts unless implemented by Congress. Despite its pedigree, both the theory behind the self-execution doctrine and its mechanics have long befuddled courts and commentators. There is significant uncertainty, for example, concerning the materials that…
The Military Commissions Act, Habeas Corpus, and the Geneva Conventions
Many commentators argued that a central problem with the government’s actions after the attacks of September 11, 2001, was executive unilateralism. For example, in criticizing President George W. Bush’s initial effort to establish military commissions to try terrorists, Professors Neal Katyal and Laurence Tribe argued that, “in the absence of an emergency that threatens truly irreparable damage to the nation or its Constitution, that Constitution…
Breard, Our Dualist Constitution, and the Internationalist Conception
In its decision last Term in 'Breard v. Greene,' the Supreme Court refused to stay the execution of Angel Breard, an inmate in Virginia, even though Virginia had violated a treaty on consular relations and the International Court of Justice had ordered the United States to "take all measures at its disposal" to stay the execution. The international law academy has been heavily critical of the Supreme Court's decision and other aspects of the Unit…
The Abiding Relevance of Federalism to U.S. Foreign Relations
The international law community has heavily criticized the United States’ handling of the Breard case. These criticisms are understandable. Perhaps because of the rush of time, the explanations by the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court for failing to stop Breard’s execution brushed over important issues of domestic and international law. In addition, Virginia’s decision to proceed with the execution, and the federal Government’s decision…
Introduction to Agora: Reflections on Zivotofsky v. Kerry
AJIL Unbound is pleased to publish an Agora on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (Zivotofsky II). 1 This highly anticipated separation-of-powers decision addresses the validity of congressional action alleged to intrude upon the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. The petitioner in Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem and wished to have his birthplace designated on his passport as "Israel." Because th…
Bond, Clear Statement Requirements, and Political Process
In its decision yesterday in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court carefully avoided addressing either the constitutional scope of the treaty power or the scope of Congress's constitutional authority to implement treaties under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The decision is nevertheless important in holding that a federalism-based clear statement requirement, which was originally developed in the context of purely domestic legislation, appli…
The Abiding Relevance of Federalism to U.S. Foreign Relations
The international law community has heavily criticized the United States’ handling of the Breard case. These criticisms are understandable. Perhaps because of the rush of time, the explanations by the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court for failing to stop Breard’s execution brushed over important issues of domestic and international law. In addition, Virginia’s decision to proceed with the execution, and the federal Government’s decision…
Breard, Our Dualist Constitution, and the Internationalist Conception
In its decision last Term in 'Breard v. Greene,' the Supreme Court refused to stay the execution of Angel Breard, an inmate in Virginia, even though Virginia had violated a treaty on consular relations and the International Court of Justice had ordered the United States to "take all measures at its disposal" to stay the execution. The international law academy has been heavily critical of the Supreme Court's decision and other aspects of the Unit…
Foreign Affairs and Domestic Reform
My Prerogative
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669. United States Supreme Court, June 28, 2006. In Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon , a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and that U.S. states may apply their regular procedural default rules to bar claims brought under Article 36. The Court reached the latter conclusion despite …
The Military Commissions Act, Habeas Corpus, and the Geneva Conventions
Many commentators argued that a central problem with the government’s actions after the attacks of September 11, 2001, was executive unilateralism. For example, in criticizing President George W. Bush’s initial effort to establish military commissions to try terrorists, Professors Neal Katyal and Laurence Tribe argued that, “in the absence of an emergency that threatens truly irreparable damage to the nation or its Constitution, that Constitution…
Intent, Presumptions, and Non-Self-Executing Treaties
Ever since the Supreme Court’s 1829 decision in Foster v. Neilson , it has been settled that some treaties ratified by the United States are “non-self-executing” and thus are not enforceable in U.S. courts unless implemented by Congress. Despite its pedigree, both the theory behind the self-execution doctrine and its mechanics have long befuddled courts and commentators. There is significant uncertainty, for example, concerning the materials that…
Attorney General Bradford’s Opinion and the Alien Tort Statute
In debates over the scope of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), one historical document has played an especially prominent role. That document is a short opinion by U.S. Attorney General William Bradford, issued in the summer of 1795, concerning the involvement of U.S. citizens in an attack by a French fleet on a British colony in Sierra Leone. In the opinion, Bradford concluded that “[s]o far ... as the transactions complained of originated or took p…
Federalism, Treaty Implementation, and Political Process: Bond V. United States
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Bond, Clear Statement Requirements, and Political Process
In its decision yesterday in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court carefully avoided addressing either the constitutional scope of the treaty power or the scope of Congress's constitutional authority to implement treaties under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The decision is nevertheless important in holding that a federalism-based clear statement requirement, which was originally developed in the context of purely domestic legislation, appli…
Introduction to Agora, Part II: Reflections on Zivotofsky v. Kerry
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (Zivotofsky II). 1 As we explained in our introduction to the first part of the Agora published in July, Zivotofsky II is a significant separation-of-powers decision concerning the exclusivity of the President's authority to recognize foreign sovereigns and their territory. 2 The essays in the first part of the Agora, by Curtis
Historical Gloss, the Recognition Power, and Judicial Review
The U.S. executive branch has long declined to recognize any country’s sovereignty over Jerusalem, insisting that the matter be worked out through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The U.S. Congress, by contrast, has tended to support Israeli sovereignty over the city. In 2002, Congress enacted the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Section 214(d) of which provides that, “[f]or purposes of the registration o…
Introduction to Agora: Reflections on Zivotofsky v. Kerry
AJIL Unbound is pleased to publish an Agora on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (Zivotofsky II). 1 This highly anticipated separation-of-powers decision addresses the validity of congressional action alleged to intrude upon the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. The petitioner in Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem and wished to have his birthplace designated on his passport as "Israel." Because th…
Obama’s Aumf Legacy
In the fifteen years since the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was enacted on September 18, 2001, the Taliban has been removed from power but not eliminated; Osama Bin Laden has been killed and the senior leaders of Al Qaeda as of 9/11 have been captured, killed, or driven underground, although Al Qaeda remains a threat; numerous Al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up around the globe, most notably in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia; a…
President Obama's War Powers Legacy
The five essays in this Agora, written by Jack Goldsmith and myself, Ashley Deeks, Ryan Goodman, Rebecca Ingber, and Michael Ramsey, consider the legal legacy of the Obama administration concerning the use of military force, with respect to both domestic law and international law. Prominent developments during the Obama administration relating to war powers include the administration's defense in habeas litigation of its authority to detain membe…
Treaty Exit in the United States: Insights from the United Kingdom or South Africa
Courts in the United Kingdom and South Africa have recently issued important rulings that have constrained the executive's authority to withdraw from treaties in those countries. This essay considers whether these rulings might offer insights for treaty exit issues in the United States. We first provide an overview of U.S. law and practice regarding the termination of international agreements. We next summarize the U.K. and South African decision…
Foreign Relations Law as a Field of Study
This essay offers a working definition of “foreign relations law,” describes its various sources, and distinguishes it from international law. It also provides some comparative illustrations of this law and notes some reasons for both commonalities and differences in this law across national jurisdictions. Finally, it discusses the growing emergence of foreign relations law as a field of study outside the United States
Introduction to Symposium on Comparative Foreign Relations Law
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button
Introduction to the Symposium on the Present and Future of Foreign Official Immunity
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button
The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law
This book ambitiously seeks to lay the groundwork for a new field of study and teaching known as “comparative foreign relations law.” Comparative foreign relations law compares and contrasts how nations, and also supranational entities such as the European Union, structure their decisions about matters such as entering into and exiting from international agreements, engaging with international institutions, and using military force, as well as ho…
Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law
Introduction to “The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic”
This introduction provides an overview of thirteen essays selected in response to a worldwide call for papers for an Agora on “The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic.” The essays in the Agora consider some of the most pressing challenges, as well as potential opportunities, that COVID-19 is creating for the international legal order. The specific topics addressed include the role of international organizations such as the World Hea…
Restating US Foreign Relations Law: Lessons from the Treaty Materials
This short article responds to observations made by Alina Miron and Paolo Palchetti about the treaty sections of the Restatement of the Law (Fourth): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. We describe the nature of the Restatement process and explain why the choices made in the Restatement (Fourth) were more constrained than what might be suggested by Miron and Palchetti’s critique. We also engage with some of their specific observations…
Conflicting Approaches to the U.S. Common Law of Foreign Official Immunity
For more than a decade, U.S. courts have struggled to develop a common law immunity regime to govern suits brought against foreign government officials, and they are now divided on a number of issues, including the extent to which they should defer to the executive branch and whether to recognize a jus cogens exception. This Editorial Comment considers a more conceptual division in the courts, between an “effect-of-judgment” approach that would c…
Historical Gloss and Foreign Affairs: Constitutional Authority in Practice
A new interpretation of the constitutional law of foreign affairs, as it has been developed throughout its history by presidents and by Congress. In the more than 230 years since the Constitution took effect, the constitutional law governing the conduct of foreign affairs has evolved significantly. But that evolution did not come through formal amendments or Supreme Court rulings. Rather, the law has been defined by the practices of Congress and …
Political science (22 works) · Law (19 works) · International Law and Aviation (15 works) · Law (13 works) · Politics (11 works) · Sociology (10 works) · International Law and Human Rights (9 works) · Law and economics (9 works) · International law (8 works) · Computer Science (7 works)