Oy Vey! The Bernstein Exception: Rethinking the Doctrine in the Wake of Constitutional Abuses, Corporate Malfeasance and the 'War on Terror'

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
B. Frankel
{"title":"Oy Vey! The Bernstein Exception: Rethinking the Doctrine in the Wake of Constitutional Abuses, Corporate Malfeasance and the 'War on Terror'","authors":"B. Frankel","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1093563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Bernstein doctrine is a classic example of the exception swallowing the rule. The Bernstein exception allows the Executive to intercede in Act of State cases when it determines that adjudication would not harm U.S. foreign relations. The Exception was initially intended solely to permit victims of Nazi war crimes to recover in United States courts. In the more than 50 years since its inception, however, the Bernstein doctrine has expanded far beyond its original intended purpose. As a result, the Bernstein exception has created a host of constitutional and political dilemmas. For example, the Bernstein exception violates the separation of powers doctrine by giving the Executive, through the State Department, unchecked power to determine the outcome of Act of State cases brought in United States courts. This power has most recently been used by the Bush Administration to intercede on behalf of powerful, multi-national corporations in suits brought by individual plaintiffs, who are often the victims of international human rights abuses at the hands of these politically-connected corporations. Moreover, the current Administration has used the Bernstein exception as another means to unconstitutionally expand its power in the purported war on terror. The Bush Administration has been successful in having cases dismissed simply by making the unsubstantiated observation that adjudication in a U.S. court might have a negative effect on a particular foreign government's continued cooperation in fighting terrorism. In short, this article argues that the Bernstein exception should be abolished by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Executive's views regarding the impact of a particular case on U.S. foreign relations may well be informative, its opinion cannot be dispositive. The judiciary is quite capable of determining the applicability of the Act of State doctrine without intervention by the Executive.","PeriodicalId":47068,"journal":{"name":"George Washington Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2008-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"George Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1093563","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Bernstein doctrine is a classic example of the exception swallowing the rule. The Bernstein exception allows the Executive to intercede in Act of State cases when it determines that adjudication would not harm U.S. foreign relations. The Exception was initially intended solely to permit victims of Nazi war crimes to recover in United States courts. In the more than 50 years since its inception, however, the Bernstein doctrine has expanded far beyond its original intended purpose. As a result, the Bernstein exception has created a host of constitutional and political dilemmas. For example, the Bernstein exception violates the separation of powers doctrine by giving the Executive, through the State Department, unchecked power to determine the outcome of Act of State cases brought in United States courts. This power has most recently been used by the Bush Administration to intercede on behalf of powerful, multi-national corporations in suits brought by individual plaintiffs, who are often the victims of international human rights abuses at the hands of these politically-connected corporations. Moreover, the current Administration has used the Bernstein exception as another means to unconstitutionally expand its power in the purported war on terror. The Bush Administration has been successful in having cases dismissed simply by making the unsubstantiated observation that adjudication in a U.S. court might have a negative effect on a particular foreign government's continued cooperation in fighting terrorism. In short, this article argues that the Bernstein exception should be abolished by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Executive's views regarding the impact of a particular case on U.S. foreign relations may well be informative, its opinion cannot be dispositive. The judiciary is quite capable of determining the applicability of the Act of State doctrine without intervention by the Executive.
Oy一!伯恩斯坦例外:在宪法滥用、公司渎职和“反恐战争”之后重新思考这一原则
伯恩斯坦主义是例外吞下规则的典型例子。伯恩斯坦例外允许行政机关在确定裁决不会损害美国外交关系的情况下,在国家法案件中进行调解。“例外”最初只是为了允许纳粹战争罪行的受害者在美国法院获得赔偿。然而,伯恩斯坦主义自诞生以来的50多年里,已经远远超出了其最初的目的。结果,伯恩斯坦例外造成了一系列宪法和政治困境。例如,伯恩斯坦例外违反了三权分立原则,它通过国务院赋予行政部门不受制约的权力,以决定提交美国法院的国家法案件的结果。这一权力最近被布什政府用来代表强大的跨国公司在个人原告提起的诉讼中进行调解,这些原告往往是这些有政治关系的公司侵犯国际人权的受害者。此外,现任政府利用伯恩斯坦例外作为另一种手段,在所谓的反恐战争中违宪地扩大其权力。布什政府成功地驳回了一些案件,仅仅是因为他们毫无根据地认为,美国法院的裁决可能会对某个外国政府继续合作打击恐怖主义产生负面影响。简而言之,本文认为伯恩斯坦例外应该被美国最高法院废除。虽然行政当局对某一特定案件对美国外交关系的影响的看法很可能是有益的,但它的意见不能是决定性的。司法部门完全有能力在不受行政部门干预的情况下确定国家行为原则的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信