Racially restrictive marriage laws lay at the intersection of state claims of domestic sovereignty and federal obligations to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. In 1948, California overturned its antimiscegenation law, citing, in addition to the Fourteenth Amendment, the United Nations Charter. This decision sparked a contentious discussion about the relationship of human rights norms to racial conventions in the United States, and triggered a debate about the peril of international law that resulted in an effort to amend the Constitution and limit the treaty-making powers of the president. Both the constitutional and the international logics of individual human rights threatened local custom and energized political opposition. American stigmatization of international human rights norms and treaties was rooted directly in the civil rights struggles in the United States and reflected the potential of international organizations to assault domestic racial conventions at their foundations.

Editor-in-Chief: Hannes, Sharon
2 Issues per year
Issues
Volume 14 (2013)
Volume 13 (2012)
Volume 12 (2011)
Volume 11 (2010)
Volume 10 (2009)
Volume 9 (2008)
Volume 8 (2007)
Volume 7 (2006)
Volume 6 (2005)
Volume 5 (2004)
Volume 3 (2002)
Volume 2 (2001)
Most Downloaded Articles
- On the Use and Abuse of Blackstone -- A Comment on Professor Schorr by Kreitner, Roy
- Global Investment Regulation and Sovereign Funds by Chalamish, Efraim
- Targeted Killing by Statman, Daniel
- Governments as Investors of Last Resort: Comparative Credit Crisis Case-Studies by Hertig, Gerard
- Corporate Governance under State Control: The Chinese Experience by Wang, Zhaofeng
Race, Marriage, and Sovereignty in the New World Order
Jane Dailey1
1The University of Chicago
Citation Information: Theoretical Inquiries in Law. Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 511–533, ISSN (Online) 1565-3404, DOI: 10.2202/1565-3404.1224, June 2009
Publication History:
- Published Online:
- 2009-06-10


















Comments (0)