Elena Chachko

Lecturer on Law

Fall 2019

Biography

Elena Chachko is an SJD candidate at Harvard Law School and a Global Order Postdoctoral Fellow at Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on the intersection of administrative law, foreign relations law, national security law, public international law, and empirical approaches to public law. Elena’s work has been published in the Yale Journal of International Law and the American Journal of International Law Unbound, among other publications. She was previously an International Security Program Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a Graduate Student Associate at the Harvard Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, and a teaching fellow in Public International Law at Harvard Law School, where she was also the coordinator of the Harvard Empirical Legal Studies Series.

Prior to her doctoral studies, Elena clerked for Chief Justice Asher D. Grunis on the Supreme Court of Israel. She has also worked at the United Nations Office of Counterterrorism and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where she focused on arms control and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, Elena previously served as an intelligence analysis officer at the Israel Defense Intelligence Research Unit. Elena earned an LL.B in Law and International Relations (magna cum laude) from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and completed the LLM program at Harvard Law School as a Fulbright scholar.

Areas of Interest

Elena Chachko, Due Process is in the Details: U.S. Targeted Sanctions and International Human Rights Law, 113 Am. J. Int’l L. Unbound 157 (2019).
Categories:
International, Foreign & Comparative Law
,
Government & Politics
Sub-Categories:
Supreme Court of the United States
,
National Security Law
,
Courts
,
Human Rights Law
,
Treaties & International Agreements
Type: Article
Abstract
The United States has employed targeted sanctions—economic and travel restrictions imposed directly on natural and legal persons—in a wide range of policy areas in the past two decades. This includes counterterrorism, nonproliferation, and cyber, as well as sanctions regimes aimed at changing the behavior of various governments. A substantial literature has considered the compatibility with international human rights law of the targeted sanctions practices of other actors, particularly the UN Security Council and the European Union. But relatively few scholars have examined U.S. targeted sanctions practices from that perspective. This essay argues that in principle, current U.S. designation practices can be reconciled with international standards. However, a more robust conclusion about the practices’ compatibility with international human rights law would require more information on the application of designation procedures in individual cases.
Elena Chachko, Foreign Affairs in Court: Lessons from CJEU Targeted Sanctions Jurisprudence, 44 Yale J. Int’l L. 1 (2019).
Categories:
Disciplinary Perspectives & Law
,
Government & Politics
,
International, Foreign & Comparative Law
Sub-Categories:
Empirical Legal Studies
,
National Security Law
,
Courts
,
Judges & Jurisprudence
,
Politics & Political Theory
,
European Law
,
Foreign Relations
Type: Article
Abstract
This paper seeks to shine new light on the dynamic between courts and policymakers in the areas of foreign affairs and national security through an empirical study of the targeted sanctions jurisprudence of the EU courts. It draws on an original dataset that includes judicial decisions reviewing 204 individual sanctions imposed under the EU Iran and Syria sanctions regimes, as well as the subsequent political and judicial dialogue related to these decisions. The principal findings of the study are (1) for first-time applicants, EU courts struck down challenged sanctions on due process grounds in 73% of the cases, (2) The EU re-imposed most of these invalidated sanctions, with the result that approximately 2/3 ultimately survived judicial annulment, and (3) in approximately 1/3 of the cases, however, judicial invalidation of the sanctions prevailed. While the data do not permit any definitive normative conclusions, they do suggest that process-oriented judicial review in the case study was successful in eliciting policymakers’ preferences as to which individual sanctions were actually essential to EU policy goals, in eliminating excessive sanctions, and in encouraging the EU Council to adhere to more robust procedures before sanctions are imposed. The empirical findings therefore indicate, the paper argues, that procedural judicial review can reconcile the need for oversight of executive action related to foreign affairs and national security with institutional concerns that have long stood in the way of judicial review in those areas. In the case under study, procedural judicial review facilitated a dynamic of accountability, without substantially hindering the ability of EU policymakers to achieve their policy goals.
Elena Chachko, On Ripeness and Constitutionality, 43 Mishpatim L.J. 419 (2012).
Categories:
Constitutional Law
,
Government & Politics
Sub-Categories:
Courts
,
Federalism
,
Supreme Court of the United States
Type: Article

Current Courses

Course Catalog View