Prof. Stark is not on the "loony fringe," but is rather in the mainstream among the International Law community. That community's members tend to oversell International Law, and thus their own importance, in a fashion that is unsurprising in light of human nature.
I think, given the state of First Amendment jurisprudence, that there is no way the United States could have ratified the treaty without taking the reservation that it did. Whether the law ought to be that way is another question, but the language strikes me as ridiculously overbroad.
Prof. Stark is not on the "loony fringe," but is rather in the mainstream among the International Law community. That community's members tend to oversell International Law, and thus their own importance, in a fashion that is unsurprising in light of human nature.
Posted by Glenn Reynolds | Link to this comment | 03- 2-03 6:25 PM
I was afraid you'd say that. I so do want to be good and liberal but the liberals sure do make it hard sometimes.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 2-03 7:25 PM
I think, given the state of First Amendment jurisprudence, that there is no way the United States could have ratified the treaty without taking the reservation that it did. Whether the law ought to be that way is another question, but the language strikes me as ridiculously overbroad.
Posted by Unf | Link to this comment | 03- 3-03 4:41 AM