Last week the U.S. Supreme Court delved into rights and remedies under international law in two different contexts: the war on crime and the war on terror. The day after the justices heard arguments over whether Salim Hamdan is entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, they took up the much less heralded cases of two foreign nationals claiming violation of their rights under the Vienna Convention. In both arenas, the Bush administration argued there were no judicially enforceable rights created.
April 05, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Twice last week the U.S. Supreme Court delved into the possible application of rights and remedies under international law but in two very different contexts: the war on crime and the war on terror.
And in both contexts, the Bush administration argued there were no judicially enforceable rights created.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
