Congress and Proposals for International Government

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Percy E. Corbett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
Background Content ◽  
Congressional Action

Since the summer of 1949 a number of resolutions embodying proposals for world or regional federation have been pending in the Congress of the United States. During the early months of 1950, extended hearings on these various proposals have been held by the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations headed by Senator Elbert Thomas. The purpose of this article is to present a critical study of the background, content, and the implications of the projects thus submitted for congressional action.

The Limits of State Jurisdiction '

1962 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 209-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.Y. Jennings
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
American Law

AbstractIt is well known that the American Law Institute is engaged upon a project of great importance and interest to international lawyers : a restament of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. In May 1958 there appeared their so-called Tentative Draft No. 2, (hereafter culled the Draft) a work of 278 pages covering all aspects of the problem of jurisdiction.1) The purpose of the present article is to attempt a critical study of some of the problems raised by what is in many ways the most important item of that tentative draft, namely section 8, which appears under »Title B. Scope of Jurisdiction Based on Territory«, and would provide as follows:

International Agreements and U.S. Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 155-171
Author(s):  
Jean Galbraith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
Administrative Reforms ◽  
Administrative Efficiency ◽  
International Commitments

Over its constitutional history, the United States has developed multiple ways of joining, implementing, and terminating treaties and other international commitments. This chapter provides an overview of the law governing these pathways and considers the extent to which comparative law has influenced them or could do so in the future. Focusing in particular on the making of international commitments, the chapter describes how, over time, the United States came to develop alternatives to the process set out in the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause, which requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. These alternatives arose partly from reasons of administrative efficiency and partly from presidential interest in making important international commitments in situations where two-thirds of the Senate would be unobtainable. These alternatives have had the effect of considerably increasing the president’s constitutional power to make international commitments. Nonetheless, considerable constraints remain on presidential power in this context, with some of these constraints stemming from constitutional law and others from statutory, administrative, and international law. With respect to comparative law, the chapter observes that U.S. practice historically has been largely but not entirely self-contained. Looking ahead, comparative practice is unlikely to affect U.S. constitutional law with respect to international agreements, but it might hold insights for legislative or administrative reforms.

Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Karen Knop
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The U.S

The two starting points for this chapter are that fields of law are inventions, and that fields matter as analytical frames. All legal systems deal with foreign relations issues, but few have a field of “foreign relations law.” As the best-stocked cabinet of issues and ideas, U.S. foreign relations law would be likely to generate the field elsewhere in the process of comparison. But some scholars, particularly outside the United States, see the nationalist or sovereigntist strains of the U.S. field, and perhaps even just its use as a template, as demoting international law. The chapter begins by asking whether this apprehension can be alleviated by using international law or an existing comparative law field to inventory the foreign relations issues to be compared. Finding neither sufficient, it turns to the U.S. field as an initial frame and sketches three types of anxieties that the U.S. experience has raised or might raise for international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting how Campbell McLachlan’s allocative conception of foreign relations law might be adapted so as to turn such anxieties about international law into opportunities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document