English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The article discusses the importance of using foreign sources in the constitutional interpretation of counter-terrorism initiatives. By reviewing the Arar case, the author underlines the value of Canadian jurisprudence to evaluating extraordinary rendition. The similarities between the Arar and El Masri cases underscore the weakness of the current standard adopted by American judiciary in evaluating extraordinary rendition. The article further draws on the Israeli experience in dealing with torture. American jurisprudence will be greatly improved if it directly discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli debate in its own constitutional interpretation. In totality, American jurisprudence has an incredible untapped resource in the experiences of other countries on addressing problems that Americans would likely see as unique.

icl journal

Learning From Others: The Scalia-Breyer Debate and the Benefits of Foreign Sources of Law to U.S. Constitutional Interpretation of Counter-Terrorism Initiatives