Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Fordham Law Review

Abstract

This Article analyzes the implications of the revisionist project for the Filartiga doctrine. We advance two related arguments: (1) Federal courts and the political branches explicitly endorse the view that, at a minimum, the scope of CIL is a federal matter; and (2) the courts and political branches also explicitly endorse the view that some definable categories of CIL-including fundamental, universally-recognized human rights-are federal common law. Our argument is simple: The consensus view that universally-recognized human rights are federal common law reflects the considered judgment of the three coordinate branches of government.

First Page

463

Volume

66

Publication Date

1997

Download

Share

COinS