Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T06:25:36.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Keynote Address: The Use of Foreign Law—A Comparative View of Canada and the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Beverley McLachlin P.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Keynote Address: The Use of Foreign Law—A Comparative View of Canada and the United States
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 104 , 2010 , pp. 491 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Heureux-Dubé, Claire L., The Importance of Dialogue: Globalization and the International Impact of the Rehnquist Court, 34 Tulsa L.J. 15, 16 (1998)Google Scholar.

2 Smits, Jan M., Comparative Law and its Influence on National Legal Systems, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law 477–512 (Reimann, Mathias & Zimmermann, Reinhard eds., 2006)Google Scholar.

3 Forest, Gérard V. La, The use of American Precedents in Canadian Courts, 46 Me. L. Rev. 211, 212 (1994)Google Scholar.

4 McCormick, Peter, The Supreme Court of Canada and American Citations 1945-1994: A Statistical Overview, 8 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. (2D) 527 (1997)Google Scholar.

5 Id.

6 Law Soc’y of Upper Can. v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, para. 12.

7 Canadian Council of Churches v. Can. (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 (in which the court compared the Canadian position to the position taken by courts in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia); Charkaoui v. Can. (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 Scc 9, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350 (in which the court relied on the use of special counsel in the United Kingdom to demonstrate that less intrusive alternatives exist to protect the individual while keeping critical information confidential).

8 R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, 738.

9 Id. at 740.

10 See Brown v. United States, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 110 (1814); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857); Hurtado v. Cal., 110 U.S. 516 (1884); Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 651-52 (1952); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958); Culombe v. Conn., 367 U.S. 568 (1961); Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 486-89 (1966).

11 O’Connor, Sandra Day, Keynote Address, 96 ASIL Proc. 348, 350 (2002)Google Scholar.

12 Knop, Karen, Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts, 32 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 501, 531 (2000)Google Scholar.

13 Lawrence v. Tex., 539 U.S. 558, 598 (2003).

14 Anderson, Kenneth, Foreign Law and the U.S. Constitution, 131 Poly Rev. 33 (2005)Google Scholar.

15 Court in Transition: From the Hearings, N.Y. Times, Sept. 14, 2005, at A26.

16 Anderson, supra note 14, at 47-49.

17 Blum, Louis J., Mixed Signals: The Limited Role of Comparative Analysis in Constitutional Adjudication, 39 SAN Diego L. Rev. 157, 163 (2002)Google Scholar.