Vols. for 1950-19 contained treaties and international agreements issued by the Secretary of State as United States treaties and other international agreements.

Presents a narrative history of Mexican cuisine in the United States, sharing a century's worth of anecdotes and cultural criticism to address questions about culinary authenticity and the source of Mexican food's popularity.

Presents an up-to-date analysis of critical constitutional issues. Special attention is given to issues of greatest concern to criminal justice personnel — detention, arrest, search and seizure, interrogations and confessions, self-incrimination, due process, and right to counsel. Also includes constitutional aspects of criminal and civil liabilities of justice personnel, and constitutional and civil rights in the workplace. Part II presents key cases to assist in interpreting the constitutional provisions.

International courts and tribunals are increasingly asked to pass judgment on matters that are traditionally considered to fall within the domestic jurisdiction of States. Especially in the fields of human rights, investment, and trade law, international adjudicators commonly evaluate decisions of national authorities that have been made in the course of democratic procedures and public deliberation. A controversial question is whether international adjudicators should review such decisions de novo or show deference to domestic authorities. This book investigates how various international courts and tribunals have responded to this question. In addition to a comparative analysis, the book provides a normative argument, discussing whether different forms of deference are justified in international adjudication. It proposes a distinction between epistemic deference, which is based on the superior capacity of domestic authorities to make factual and technical assessments, and constitutional deference, which is based on the democratic legitimacy of domestic decision-making. The book concludes that epistemic deference is a prudent acknowledgement of the limited expertise of international adjudicators, whereas the case for constitutional deference depends on the relative power of the reviewing court vis-à-vis the domestic legal order.