Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party.
Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
Wildy's will be closed on Monday 1st May and will re-open on Tuesday 2nd May.
Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.
As usual Credit Cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.
Any non-UK eBook orders placed after 5pm on the Friday 28th April will not be processed until Tuesday 2nd May. UK eBook orders will be processed as normal.
In the U.S. legal system, the federal government has traditionally been the only rightful arena for the conduct of foreign affairs, especially in the case of national security, military action, international trade, and treaty-making. However, the pervasiveness of globalization and the attendant ease of cross-border interactions, with implications for commerce and terrorism, have brought U.S. states, counties, and municipalities increasingly into the federal government's long-standing province of international relations. For example, states now forge trade relationships with foreign governments through energy and investment contracts that very much resemble treaties. If a foreign sovereign violates any of these contracts or statutes, then civil or criminal action against that sovereign could interfere with the U.S. federal government's diplomatic relations overseas. Consequently, the legal status of states and local governments in the conduct of foreign affairs is unclear and in need of thoughtful analysis and guidance.
In Foreign Affairs Federalism, Michael Glennon and Robert Sloane study the constitutional allocation of foreign affairs powers between the federal government and the states. They explain the current law clearly and accessibly, identifying those areas where the law can be confidently ascertained. Where the law cannot be determined, they suggest the most plausible or compelling perspectives on existing doctrine. They also appraise existing doctrine against the background of the diverse and incompatible goals and challenges facing the United States in the twenty-first century.