Delegation and Conflicts (of Law)

Abstract

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Medellin rekindled a long-standing debate over delegation, which concerns the legal effect given to the decisions of foreign bodies (like the International Court of Justice) in the United States. Drawing on conflicts-of-law principles, this paper identifies and seeks to correct three distortions in the debate. First, it broadens the definition of delegation. Second, it advances a more nuanced system for classifying different types of delegations. Third, it wades into the normative debate over the desirability of various delegations. The closing section draws a parallel between the strategies employed in Medellin to those employed in the EC to expand the reach of European law in Member States.