Abstract
This essay argues that Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council may not portend a more aggressive intervention by the federal courts in enforcing a federal common law of foreign relations. A significant concern that underlies foreign affairs preemption is concern that 50 states might undermine the sole voice of the federal government in representing the nation. This concern, however, applies equally to the federal courts, which are not structurally suited due to their slowness and decentralization for involvement in foreign affairs. Enhancing the effectiveness of foreign policy calls for a reduced role for the judiciary in favor of the concentration of authority in the political branches.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
