War Losses to a Neutral. An Analysis of the Cost to the United States of Cash and Carry, Neutrality Embargoes, Economic Sanctions, and Other Policies in the Far Eastern Conflict. By Eugene Staley. (New York: League of Nations Assn., 1937. pp. 78. 25¢.) - International Loans and the Conflict of Laws. A Comparative Survey of Recent Cases. By Martin Domke. (The Grotius Society. London: Sweet & Maxwell, Ltd., 1937. pp. 21. 2s. 6d.)

1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 650-651
Author(s):  
Philip C. Jessup
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Comparative Survey ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Far Eastern ◽  
Cash And Carry

Towards a Theory of Taxation

1984 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-173
Author(s):  
J. R. Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The Cost ◽  
George Iii

“Towards a Theory of Taxation” is a proper theme for an Englishman to take when giving a paper in America. After all it was from the absence of such a theory that the United States derived its existence. The Colonists felt strongly that there should be no taxation without representation, and George III was unable to explain to them convincingly why they should contribute to the cost of their defense. Since that time, understanding has not advanced much. In Britain we still maintain the fiction that taxes are a voluntary gift to the Crown, and taxing statutes are given the Royal Assent with the special formula, “La Reine remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult” instead of the simple “La Reine le veult,” and in the United States taxes have regularly been levied on residents of the District of Columbia who until recently had no representation in Congress, and by the State of New York on those who worked but did not reside in the State, and so did not have a vote. Taxes are regularly levied, in America as elsewhere, on those who have no say on whether they should be levied or how they should be spent. I am taxed by the Federal Government on my American earnings and by state governments on my American spending, but I should be hard put to it to make out that it was unjust. Florida is wondering whether to follow California in taxing multinational corporations on their world-wide earnings.

scholarly journals Introduction to Symposium on the Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law School ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Third ◽  
American Law

The American Law Institute (ALI) has recently embarked on the project of elaborating a new Restatement of Conflict of Laws. Its first two Restatements on this subject have been enormously influential. The Ali began its work on the First Restatement in 1923, naming Joseph Beale of the Harvard Law School as its Reporter. Adopted in 1934, the First Restatement reflected the highly territorialist approach to the conflict of laws that had long prevailed in this country. Even before the First Restatement’s adoption, the First Restatement’s territorialist approach, and the “vested rights” theory on which it was based, was subjected to intense scholarly criticism. Nevertheless, the First Restatement’s approach continued to prevail in the United States until the New York Court of Appeals initiated a “choice-of-law revolution” in the early 1960’s with its decision inBabcock v. Jackson. Although most states have departed from the First Restatement’s approach, the First Restatement retains its adherents. Ten states continue to follow the First Restatement for tort cases and twelve states for contract cases.

The Effect of the Non-Recognition of Manchukuo

1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-683
Author(s):  
Frederick A. Middlebush
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
United States Government ◽  
States Government ◽  
International Sanctions ◽  
Far Eastern

When the United States government, on January 7, 1932, and the Extraordinary Assembly of the League of Nations, on March 11, 1932, and again on February 24, 1933, invoked non-recognition as a sanction,1 the necessity at once arose of determining what would be the precise effects, as far as international relations are concerned, of withholding recognition of Manchukuo. It may seem strange that the decision to resort to non-recognition as a sanction was taken before an attempt was made to determine the practical effects of such action on the Far Eastern situation. Presumably, however, this must be the procedure in the application of international sanctions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document