PUBLICATIONS
Economic Sanctions
Law Review Articles
Sanctions and the Blurred Boundaries of International Economic Law - Missouri Law Review (2018)
Economic sanctions are often said to occupy a middle space between communiqués and combat. As this description makes clear, sanctions are a political tool – but a political tool that operates through economic regulation. They are simultaneously economic and political.
Their dual nature seems to place sanctions in a twilight zone, neither truly in nor out of the academic discipline of international economic law ("IEL"). Sanctions tend to be marginalized in IEL scholarship, generally taking little space in the IEL literature and at the podiums of IEL conferences and courses. While economic sanctions loom large today in headline news and the practice of international trade law, they are not proportionately represented in recent IEL literature. Rather, IEL scholarship seems content to leave sanctions to other disciplines like public international law, economics, and international relations. To be sure, sporadic controversies capture attention – but typically when they implicate other IEL concerns, as when the Helms-Burton brouhaha erupted at the then-fledgling World Trade Organization ("WTO").
This article contends that sanctions are part of IEL and they warrant more rigorous consideration in IEL scholarship. Sanctions cross both the borders between IEL and other fields, and the borders within IEL itself, thus nicely illustrating Andreas Lowenfeld’s observation in his treatise on International Economic Law that “everything is related to everything else” and “the boundaries between them are inevitably blurred.” These arguments are supported by a deep look at the economic sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Treasury, especially the OFAC sanctions against Cuba.
The Politics of Divestment - The Politics of International Economic Law (2011)
In the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, Congress authorized state governments to divest from businesses investing in Sudan. Congress took this unprecedented step in the face of objections from the Bush Administration and the business community that state divestment intrudes unconstitutionally into the exclusive foreign-relations prerogatives of the federal government. SADA would be remarkable enough if it allowed state divestment while adhering to a dualist conception of federalism. This paper explores the possibility that SADA and its progeny – the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (‘CISADA’) of 2010 – may signal the emergence of a dialogic view of federalism, under which the federal government recognizes that states may legitimately speak on international concerns within bounds that preserve ultimate federal control over foreign relations.
Darfur, Divestment, and Dialogue - University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law (2009)
The horrors of Darfur have prompted twenty-seven states to divest from Sudan, the most notable divestment movement since the end of apartheid. Divestment is capable of serving a number of inter-related functions in the democratic process of formulating U.S. foreign policy: attention-getting, norm-changing, door-opening, and even assisting the President in pursuing his foreign policy objectives.
Divestment thus places the states in public dialogue about policy towards Sudan. This creates tension with the "one voice" view of foreign relations, which is embedded in several constitutional doctrines.
Congress cleared the doctrinal clouds away from the Darfur divestment movement by enacting the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act. SADA creates a space - within important bounds - where states can speak on foreign policy. SADA internationalizes Brandeis' famous description of states as "laboratories of democracy," enabling each state to decide whether and how to experiment with divestment within parameters that, in Congress' judgment, avoid "risk to the rest of the country." SADA's approach to bounding preserves for Congress the flexibility to constrain divestment in the national interest, while also encouraging both Congress and the states to show due restraint and respect for each other's important institutional interests.
SADA thus exemplifies the dialogic view of federalism, in which our constitutional structure is viewed as an ongoing conversation. On this view, the federal government has the dominant voice in international relations - but not the only voice. It gives the federal government the option to tolerate, encourage, and even listen to and benefit from other speakers. Opening the formulation of foreign policy to a multiplicity of voices no doubt causes certain difficulties for the President. Still, it is democratic - and, by reconceiving the President not as a soloist but as a conductor, one may recognize the opportunities that state action generates even for the President.
Too-frequent resort to divestment risks both under diversification of investment portfolios and dilution of divestment's power to amplify speech. The article concludes with an argument why Darfur makes a particularly compelling demand for more forceful than normal state speech.
Short Articles
Congress Turns to Capital Markets to Support Sanctions - International Financial Law Review (2001)
For years the US has imposed economic sanctions on certain nations it deems undesirable. Now, the Bush administration is facing potential conflicts of interest as Congress pursues an aggressive policy, making use of the first time of US capital markets. This article discusses the compliance issues companies need to understand about the proposed legislation.
Presentations
Due Process & Economic Sanctions - Wake Forest University School of Law (2022)
These are the slides for a presentation I gave at the Wake Forest Law School's symposium on economic sanctions.
Roundtable Discussion on Economic Sanctions during the Ukraine War: A Practitioner's Perspective - Texas A&M Law (2022)
This is the video of a panel discussion among distinguished lawyers practicing economic sanctions law about the practice of sanctions law during 2022. This discussion was held in September 2022 at the Texas A&M Law School. It was part of the biennial conference of the International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law.
US Sanctions and Export Controls: Implications for New Zealand - New Zealand Trade & Enterprise (2022)
​These are the slides for a webinar I gave with Dan Fisher-Owens about the various ways that US sanctions and export controls can affect New Zealand businesses.
US Sanctions and Export Controls: Implications for New Zealand - New Zealand Trade & Enterprise (2022)
This is the video of a webinar I gave with Dan Fisher-Owens about the various ways that US sanctions and export controls can affect New Zealand businesses.
Russia Sanctions: Implications for Italy and Europe - ICC Italy (2022)
These are the slides for a webinar presentation I gave at the ICC Italy on March 22, 2022.
Russia Sanctions: Implications for China - Renmin University (2022)
These are slides for a webinar presentation I gave on March 14, 2022, through Renmin University. The presentation was given in English and translated into Chinese by Li Li, a partner at the Chance Bridge law firm in China.
Human Rights & Economic Sanctions - ASIL Human Rights Interest Group (2020)
These are the slides for a presentation I gave on June 26, 2020, to the Human Rights Interest Group of the American Society of International Law as part of the ASIL Annual Meeting.
US Sanctions Today: A Brief Overview - Lewis & Clark Law School (2020)
These are the slides for a presentation I gave on March 6, 2020, at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, OR.
A First Look at Litigation under the Helms-Burton Act - ASIL Tillar House (2019)
This is the link to a video of a panel I moderated about litigation under the Helms-Burton Act concerning claims of expropriated property in Cuba. The panel was held at the American Society of International Law headquarters in October 2019.
U.S. Sanctions: Implications for Korea - KITA (2019)
These are the slides for a presentation I gave in Seoul on September 25, 2019, at the Korean International Trade Association.
US Sanctions & Export Controls: Implications for China - Beijing Arbitration Commission / Beijing International Arbitration Center (2019)
These are the slides accompanying a presentation I gave at the Beijing Arbitration Commission / Beijing International Arbitration Center on 4 March 2019.
Iran Sanctions Relief After "Implementation Day" - (2016)
These are the PowerPoint slides for a talk I gave to international businesses on February 16, 2016, about the status and prospects of sanctions relief following Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal reached between Iran and the US, EU (and France, Germany, and the UK), China, and Russia.