Presidents possess vast authority over policies and outcomes. Recent studies suggest the public checks this unilateralism through expressive opinions and political participation. We reevaluate this accountability link with a preregistered panel survey that incorporates a number of design and conceptual improvements over existing experimental studies. Our findings reveal a more complex relationship between presidential actions and public opinion. We find no evidence that the public reacts negatively to unilateralism – and some evidence they react positively. Respondents, however, may punish an incumbent for failing to implement the proposed policy change. While such a result suggests that the public can hold presidents accountable, we close by discussing how a lack of information likely renders this check moot.

A general right to equality is a common feature of written constitutions around the world. Interesting questions arise when one seeks to apply such rights to discrete executive acts. The subject of such acts has necessarily been singled out from a multitude of possibilities for the purposes of the act. To determine whether a differentiation has occurred such that like cases have not been treated alike, to what or whom should this subject be compared? The question of how one selects the proper comparator becomes especially significant when one notes that whether the equal protection guarantee is triggered at all depends on the answer to this question. This paper will study how courts in Hong Kong and Singapore have addressed these difficulties. It argues that three categories of approaches can be discerned in these jurisdictions: class-focused, policy-focused, and justification-focused approaches. It critically evaluates each approach, argues in favour of a justification-focused approach to constitutional equal protection in the context of discrete executive acts, and explores the implications of such an approach for the proper relationship between constitutional equality and administrative law.

This commentary details the United States’ progress in advancing climate change law since President Barrack Obama’s re-election in 2012, in spite of congressional dysfunction and opposition. It describes how the Obama administration is building upon earlier regulatory efforts by using existing statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants. It also explains the important role the judiciary has played in facilitating more robust executive actions, while at the same time courts have rejected citizen efforts to force judicial remedies for the problem of climate change. Finally, it suggests some reasons why climate change has gained more prominence in the Obama administration’s second term agenda and considers how domestic actions help the United States to reposition itself in international climate diplomacy.

International Law — In General — Sources of — Analogy of Rules of International Law in pari materia — Hague Convention of 1907 — Applicability to Military Operations other than in the Course of War — Authority of Writers — Arbitral Decisions.

Protectorates — State Responsibility in respect of — Spanish Protectorate over Morocco.

State Responsibility — Denial of Justice — Failure to Prosecute — Situation of General Insecurity — Limits of Responsibility.

Executive Action — Acts of Soldiers — Damage Done in the Course of Military Operations.

State Responsibility — Acts of Rioters — Damage Suffered in the Course of Insurrections.

Aliens — Treatment of — State Responsibility — In respect to Protectorates — Spanish Protectorate over Morocco.

Aliens — Expropriation of Property — Compensation for.

State Responsibility — In General — For Treatment of Aliens — Damage Suffered in the Course of Risings, Revolts and Wars — Acts of Plunder — Damage Caused during Military Operations — Failure to Prosecute — Denial of Justice — Expropriation of Alien Property — State Responsibility in regard to Protectorates — The Spanish Protectorate over Morocco — Sources of Decision — Application of Rules by Analogy — Hague Convention No. IV. of 1907 — Authority of Writers — Arbitral Awards.

Executive Action — Injurious Acts by Soldiers — Unjustified Shooting to Prevent Smuggling.

Executive Action — Unjustified Shooting — The Existence of an International Standard — Regulations to Prevent Smuggling — Denial of Justice — Action of the President of the United States in Reversing a Judgment of a Court Martial.