The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies
Since 1946, the United States has had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court or Court). This chapter addresses certain salient aspects of that relationship. Following an introductory Part I, Part II briefly sets forth three "antinomies" (i.e. equally rational but conflicting principles) in U.S. foreign relations that have had important ramifications for the U.S. relationship with the Court from the outset. First, the United States operates on the basis of conflicting principles with respect to the relevance of international law and institutions for U.S. foreign policy. These conflicting principles have been referred to broadly in international relations theory as "realism" and "institutionalism." Second, the United States operates on the basis of conflicting principles with respect to whether states should be treated as equal sovereigns or as units characterized by inescapable power differentials. Third, the United States operates on the basis of conflicting principles with respect to whether international law should be "embedded" in U.S. law, including the manner in which international courts relate to U.S. law. Part III suggests that the International Court was initially designed to accommodate such antinomies (which also exist with respect to other states, to varying degrees) by providing the means for mediating between these conflicting principles. These techniques for mediating antinomies are discussed in the context of the history of the U.S. relationship with the Court from its inception to modern times. Part IV then briefly highlights the unfolding of these antimonies in some of the recent cases of the United States before the Court, with particular attention to the Oil Platforms case, the Israeli Wall advisory opinion, and the Breard/LaGrand/Avena cases. Among other things, Part V suggests that certain formal and informal means for mediating these antimonies may have been forgotten in the past twenty years, leading to a point where the Court readily finds fault in the United States and the United States holds the Court in very low regard. The chapter concludes that these antinomies are unlikely to be resolved through the further development of formal or informal mediating techniques. In the near term, American policymakers will seek to avoid any involvement in matters before the Court, while the Court will embrace opportunities to speak to the legality of U.S. actions.
The American Tradition of International Law: Great Expectations 1789-1914
CHAPTER ONE The English Legacy- The Law of Nations and International Law CHAPTER TWO The Jurists- the International law of Christendom CHAPTER THREE The Lawyers and Judges- International Law in the Courtroom and the Constitution CHAPTER FOUR The Utopians- International Law and World Peace CHAPTER FIVE The Scientists- The Codification and Science of International Law CHAPTER SIX Dreamers and Diplomats- The Promise of International Law
Iron deficiency in pregnancy
Iron deficiency (ID) and related anaemia (IDA) during pregnancy are highly prevalent worldwide in both developed and developing nations although the causes are often different. At conception, many women lack sufficient iron stores to meet the increased requirements of pregnancy, which are calculated at approximately 1200 mg. Appraisal of iron status in pregnant women is problematic, however the most reliable available diagnostic test is a serum ferritin < 20 µg/L. ID is often associated with other nutritional disorders, and there is frequently a secondary cause or association. A greater oral intake is usually insufficient to meet the increased demands of pregnancy, however regular oral supplements (given either daily or intermittently) can often meet maternal needs and avoid associated neonatal complications of IDA. Over-treatment with iron should be avoided, but intravenous administration is useful when deficiency is discovered late, is severe, or if the woman is intolerant of oral formulations. This paper reviews the current literature, and addresses differences in the prevalence and causes of ID betwen developed and developing nations. It examines gestational iron requirements, distinguishes between ID and IDA, and highlights difficulties in diagnostic testing. Finally, it appraises the evidence for and against different treatment regimens, ranging from food fortification to intravenous iron infusions, according to availability and to need.