Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Contributors
- 1 International Courts and Tribunals and the Rule of Law
- 2 American Public Opinion on International Courts and Tribunals
- 3 Arbitration and Avoidance of War: The Nineteenth-Century American Vision
- 4 The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies
- 5 The U.S. Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice: What Does “Respectful Consideration” Mean?
- 6 U.S. Attitudes toward International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- 7 The United States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- 8 From Paradox to Subsidiarity: The United States and Human Rights Treaty Bodies
- 9 The U.S. and International Claims and Compensation Bodies
- 10 Does the United States Support International Tribunals? The Case of the Multilateral Trade System
- 11 The United States and Dispute Settlement under the North American Free Trade Agreement: Ambivalence, Frustration, and Occasional Defiance
- 12 Dispute Settlement under NAFTA Chapter 11: A Response to the Critics in the United States
- 13 The United States and International Courts: Getting the Cost-Benefit Analysis Right
- Index
Preface
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Contributors
- 1 International Courts and Tribunals and the Rule of Law
- 2 American Public Opinion on International Courts and Tribunals
- 3 Arbitration and Avoidance of War: The Nineteenth-Century American Vision
- 4 The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies
- 5 The U.S. Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice: What Does “Respectful Consideration” Mean?
- 6 U.S. Attitudes toward International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- 7 The United States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- 8 From Paradox to Subsidiarity: The United States and Human Rights Treaty Bodies
- 9 The U.S. and International Claims and Compensation Bodies
- 10 Does the United States Support International Tribunals? The Case of the Multilateral Trade System
- 11 The United States and Dispute Settlement under the North American Free Trade Agreement: Ambivalence, Frustration, and Occasional Defiance
- 12 Dispute Settlement under NAFTA Chapter 11: A Response to the Critics in the United States
- 13 The United States and International Courts: Getting the Cost-Benefit Analysis Right
- Index
Summary
Among the phenomena that have characterized international relations since 1945, two are particularly noteworthy. The first is the rise of the United States to the status of “superpower.” The second is the growth of international organizations and international law to cover areas of human activity hitherto left to individual states to manage and regulate. Both phenomena have experienced a sudden acceleration and qualitative transformation since 1990. The collapse of the Soviet Union has removed the only plausible rival of the United States, turning it into the sole superpower: the only nation in the world that has strategic interests to defend in every corner of the globe. At the same time, the increasing density and specialization of international legal regimes, which have been dubbed the legalization of world politics, have given way in some areas to a further and separate stage of development. This stage can be called the judicialization of international relations. Indeed, since the early 1990s, there has been a remarkable increase in the number of international judicial bodies, at both the regional and global levels. Nowadays, there are about eighteen permanent international courts and tribunals currently active in fields ranging from general questions of international law to specialized international law areas, such as human rights, trade, law of the sea, and criminal law. These international bodies generate a considerable and steady flow of judgments, advisory opinions, orders, and warrants.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Sword and the ScalesThe United States and International Courts and Tribunals, pp. xiii - xxivPublisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009