Consultative Council of North Altlantic Powers

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 726-727

With the ratification of the North Atlantic treaty by France on August 24, 1949, the treaty came into force. France was the last of the seven nations drafting the alliance to file its ratification, the six other original countries – the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and Luxembourg – having previously ratified the treaty. Ratifications had also been filed by the other five nations which later became associated with the pact: Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Portugal and Italy.

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-365

On April 4, 1949 the North Atlantic security alliance treaty was signed in Washington by representatives of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. When ratified by Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the treaty would come into force.


1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 362-369

The Governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;Being parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed at Washington on April 4, 1949;Considering their reciprocal pledges under Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty separately and jointly with the other parties, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack;


1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 771-777

The Council established by Article 9 of the North Atlantic treaty held its first session in Washington on Sept. 17, 1949. Representatives of the parties to the treaty attending this first session were:For Belgium — The Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Paul Van Zeeland.For Canada — The Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Lester B. Pearson.For Denmark — The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Gustav Rasmussen.For France — The Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Robert Schuman.For Iceland — The Minister to the United States, Mr. Thor Thors.For Italy — The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Sforza.For Luxembourg — The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Josef Bech.For the Netherlands — The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dirk U. Stikker.For Norway — The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Halvard M. Lange.For Portugal — The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jose Caeiro da Matta.For the United Kingdom — The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ernest Bevin.For the United States — The Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson.


1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-832

With the development of certain administrative frictions (concerning coal quotas, occupation costs, and the scrap metal treaty) between the western occupying powers and the German Federal Republic, early indications were that if the talk of “contractual agreements” did materialize it would reserve, for the occupying powers, wide controls over important areas of west Germany's internal and external affairs. In Washington, however, a general modification of approach was noted during the September discussions between the United States Secretary of State (Acheson), the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary (Morrison), and the French Foreign Minister (Schuman), preparatory to the Ottawa meetings of the North Atlantic Council.


2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (4) ◽  
pp. 715-721

In July, the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), and other allies attributed a variety of malicious cyber activities, including the Microsoft Exchange hack, to China. This joint attribution builds on commitments made in June summits with NATO, the G7, the EU, and the United Kingdom, and is consistent with the Biden administration's multilateral approach to confronting cybersecurity threats and China more generally. Still, critics question whether the administration's efforts will succeed in altering the behavior of states that pose cybersecurity threats to the United States.


Author(s):  
Thorkild Kjærgaard

Thorkild Kjærgaard: The Peace in Kiel, Greenland, and the North Atlantic, 1814–2014 At the peace conference in Kiel (North Germany) in January 1814, the Danish-Norwegian North Atlantic Empire that controlled an enormous area of land and water, including not only Denmark (with Schleswig-Holstein) and Norway but also Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the huge, thinly populated ice-covered island of Greenland, was dissolved by the victorious powers of the Napoleonic wars. Norway was given to Sweden as compensation for Finland, which Sweden — now in the victorious coalition — had lost to Russia in 1809. Rather surprisingly, the Kingdom of Denmark — now, without Norway, Europe’s smallest independent country — was entrusted with Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, although these three North Atlantic areas since early medieval times had been a part of the Kingdom of Norway. Without question, this was a major historical injustice. For Denmark, the outcome of the 1814 conference in Kiel was twofold: it was reduced to a very small country and it became — and still is — a polar nation, which it had not been before. The article discusses three aspects of this complex. Firstly: What happened in Kiel? Why were the three North Atlantic territories taken from Norway and given to Denmark? Was it, as it has been claimed by a majority of historians, the merit of sly Danish diplomats or was it — as the author believes — the will of the United Kingdom that was imposed on two small countries, Sweden and Denmark? Secondly, it is discussed how Denmark dealt with its new role as a polar nation. It turns out that Denmark initially was a rather hesitant, not to say, unwilling polar nation. Gradually, however, the extraordinary qualities of the North Atlantic islands, especially Greenland, were recognized. Since the end of the 19th century, Greenland has been a major subject of Danish art and literature, just as it has been a decisive dimension of Danish scientific research. The last section of the article deals with the significance of Greenland for Danish security and foreign policy. It is shown how the suffocating dependency on Great Britain after 1814 gradually was reduced thanks to a rapprochement to the new world power, the United States, which very early on showed interest in Greenland, which is, geographically, a part of the North American continent. The close alliance with the United States has saved Greenland for Denmark, just as it has been extremely helpful for Denmark in number of critical situations since 1814, but it also has its price. The price is that Denmark always follows US and never questions US actions. Relatively, Denmark, one of President Bush’s “willing nations,” has had more casualties on the American battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other of the United States’ allied nations. The Danish soldiers who have been killed on Middle East or Central Asiatic battlefields since 2001 have died for Greenland.


Author(s):  
Philippa Webb

This chapter sets out the approach of the courts of England and Wales (English courts) to the immunities of states, foreign officials, and international organizations. It discusses similarities with and differences from other jurisdictions, with a focus on the United States as the other key influence in the development of the restrictive doctrine of state immunity. The United Kingdom has engaged in incremental development of the law on immunity as compared to the more sui generis developments in the North America and the activist approach driven by domestic constitutional norms or universal jurisdiction legislation in continental Europe. The United Kingdom State Immunity Act, underpinned by four decades of interpretation and practice, can be said to represent a middle ground in the evolving landscape of immunity.


1991 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-335
Author(s):  
N. Ward

In 1987 a special meeting of IALA held at Trinity House in London expressed a common purpose to enhance and expand existing Loran-C coverage in North-West Europe and the North Atlantic. After two years of negotiation, agreement was finally reached in January of this year to proceed with the project. The countries involved are Canada, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom, with cooperation from the United States and Denmark. They will re-equip six existing United States Coast Guard stations and use two French stations together with four new transmitters to provide four chains, covering the whole of NW Europe and most of the North Atlantic.


1986 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-130
Author(s):  
Rolf Rundfelt

This paper looks at insider trading regulation in Europe and finds a broad spectrum. Two countries, the United Kingdom and Sweden, have insider regulations very similar to those in the United States. The author attributes this to well-developed stock markets and the Swedish search for confidence in their stocks. At the other extreme, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Switzerland have no regulation at present.


Polar Record ◽  
1938 ◽  
Vol 2 (16) ◽  
pp. 124-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. L. S. Fleming

On April 14, 1912, the Titanic sank as the result of a collision with an iceberg and a large number of her passengers and crew were drowned. As a direct result of this disaster an International Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea was convened in London. In order to protect transatlantic shipping from dangers of icebergs and field-ice it was clear that it would be necessary to institute a systematic patrol of the North Atlantic. This work was undertaken by the United States Coast Guard who have carried it out most ably under the direction of the International Ice Patrol Board. As at present organised, the patrol is carried out by three vessels. One is an oceanographic vessel fully equipped with a seagoing laboratory which attempts to make one current map per month of the area that appears most critical at the time. The other two are patrol vessels which make cruises of two weeks' duration and relieve one another every fifteen days.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document