United States: Comments on the Draft Articles on State Responsibility

1998 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 468-487
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law

The United States agrees with the Commission that a statement of the law of state responsibility must provide guidance to states with respect to the following questions:When does an act of a state entail international responsibility? What actions are attributable to the state? What consequences flow from a state'sviolation of its international responsibility? Customary international law provides answers to these questions, but the Commission has in many instances not codified such norms but rather proposed new substantive rules. In particular, the sections on countermeasures, crimes, dispute settlement, and state injury contain provisions that are not supported by customary international law.

Suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty prior to its withdrawal: the content of custom

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-164
Author(s):  
Kazuki Hagiwara
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Intermediate Range ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Law

The United States suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) ‘in accordance with customary international law’. However, State practice prior to the International Law Commission's codification of the law of treaties did not contribute to clarifying the extent of a right to suspend and the proper conditions for its exercise under customary international law. The few instances regarding suspension due to a serious breach did not demonstrate how the treaties in question were suspended but were a mere reference to a right of suspension in diplomatic or political documents. Against that backdrop, this article seeks to delineate what customary rules the United States believed it was observing and to clarify to what extent those rules are identical to or different from the codified rules on suspension in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Convention). Because the codified procedural safeguards or the mechanism of acquiescence under Article 65 of the Convention were considered as the progressive development of international law, it appears possible to suspend the INF Treaty unilaterally outside the Convention and under the customary rules by which the United States is bound. The INF Treaty was suspended by the United States and by Russia in sequence. That Russian suspension appears to have been an exceptio non adimpleti contractus to prevent the asymmetric execution of the INF Treaty that had been previously suspended by the United States.

Jurisdiction, State Immunity, and Judgments in the Restatement (Fourth) of US Foreign Relations Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-135
Author(s):  
William S Dodge
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Frequency ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In 2018, the American Law Institute published the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law, which restates the law of the United States governing jurisdiction, state immunity, and judgments. These issues arise with great frequency in international cases brought in US courts, including cases involving Chinese parties. This article provides an overview of many of the key provisions of the Restatement (Fourth). The article describes the Restatement (Fourth)’s treatment of the customary international law of jurisdiction, as well the rules of US domestic law based on international comity that US courts apply when deciding international cases.

Statement by Expert Panel: U.S. Policy on the Settlement of Disputes in the Law of the Sea

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 438-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Deep Seabed Mining ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Seabed Mining

In 1983, President Reagan announced the policy of the United States to accept the normative provisions of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea as reflecting the customary international law of the sea (in matters other than deep seabed mining).

The Settlement of Mexican Claims Act of 1942

1943 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert W. Briggs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Department ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Mexican Government ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
To Receive

With the enactment on December 19, 1942, of the misnamed “Settlement of Mexican Claims Act of 1942,” American nationals with claims based upon the international responsibility of Mexico for acts or omissions in contravention of international law appear likely to receive long-delayed satisfaction. Some of the claims are more than 60 years old. Awards were made by the United States-Mexican General Claims Commission in favor of some of the claimants more than 15 years ago, but to date no money has been paid to the beneficiaries of these awards. Various factors appear to have made this claims arbitration one of the most dilatory, inefficient, and unfortunate in our history. Claimants were notoriously lax in presenting evidence to the State Department, although in some cases they appear to have been hindered by the Mexican Government from obtaining necessary evidence in Mexico. The preambles to three conventions extending the life of the General Claims Commission allege that “it now appears” or “it has been found” that the Commission could not hear, examine, and decide the claims within the time limit fixed; but Judge Fred K. Nielsen, American Commissioner on that court, has pointed out with some vigor that it was not the Commission, so much as the failure of American counsel and the Department of State, to prepare cases for presentation to the Commission, which caused the delay and paucity of decisions. Resignations of Commissioners, protracted delays in replacing them, antagonisms between Commissioners, and lack of cooperation by the Mexican Government were other factors contributing to the 19-year delay in effecting a settlement.

scholarly journals Violation on State Sovereignty by Military and Paramilitary Activities on Nicaragua vs United States Case

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 05001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Zainab ◽  
Dewa Nyoman Agung Noviardi ◽  
Fadilla Farhan Eka Buana ZK
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Study Materials ◽  
Self Defense

The Sovereignty of the State provides the rights of protection responsibility for the sovereignty of its people, respecting and fulfilling its citizens’ rights and cooperate on the international community. However, in certain dispute, the Sovereignty of the State was violated by the internal member of the state, particularly by a military and paramilitary member on the case of Nicaragua vs. the United States. This study examines the use of force by military and paramilitary members as a mean of self-defense. The use of force has violated the state sovereignty and international law on the relation of both countries. The study was conducted by researching relevant decisions and facts of International Law, customary international law, general principles of law, international treaties, conventions, declarations and decisions of international organizations. By using the study materials, in the end, it can be seen how the concept of Sovereignty of the State in International Law.

25. The conditions for international responsibility

2019 ◽  
pp. 523-551
Author(s):  
James Crawford
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the basis and character of state responsibility, attribution to the state, breach of an international obligation, and circumstances precluding wrongfulness. This chapter focuses on the articulation of the law of responsibility through the ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

Exceeding the Limits of Territorial Bounds: The Helms-Burton Act

1997 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 161-213
Author(s):  
H. Scott Fairley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Trade Agreements ◽  
Title Iv ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Title Iii

SummaryThe author argues that the Helms-Burton Act violates general principles of international law. The analysis begins with a brief discussion of the extraterritorial purposes, structure, and operation of the act, followed by a survey of international responses to Helms-Burton by the principal trading partners of the United States: diplomatic protest, formalized dispute settlement under international trade agreements, retaliatory blocking leghlation, and multi-hteral scrutiny in and by international institutions. The author then turns to principles of jurisdiction with a view to demonstrating that Helms-Burton does not meet the applicable thresholds to support either the private right to sue for trafficking in confiscated property under Title III of the act or the governmental exclusion of designated aliens from admission to the United States under Title IV. In this regard, substantive international law arguments in relation to extraterritoriality and nationality, remoteness, the effects doctrine, human rights, and the reasonable expectations of other nations are also considered.

Book III Privileges and Immunities, 12 Privileges and Immunities of the State, The Head of State, State Officials, and State Agencies

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
General Description ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Written Form ◽  
The Law

This chapter provides an account of the immunities of the State, its officials, and state agencies in international law. It first offers a general description of the plea of state immunity and a brief historical account of the development of the law of state immunity. Then it briefly sets out the law relating to the immunities of the State itself as a legal person, followed by the law applicable to its officials and to state agencies. In addition an account based on customary international law will be provided on the immunities of senior state officials. The chapter concludes by taking note of the extent to which the practice of diplomatic missions at the present time accords with requirements of state immunity law as now set out in written form in the 2004 UN Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document