Far Eastern Commission

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 651-655
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Careful Study ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
Peace Settlement ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Far Eastern

Japanese Peace Treaty: Diplomatic discussions initiated in the fall of 1950 by the United States government with members of the Far Eastern Commission continued during the period under review. On December 27, 1950, the United States delivered to the Soviet representative to the United Nations (Malik) an aide-mémoire which further discussed points raised by the Soviet government in its reply of November 20 to the United States proposal of October 26 for a Japanese peace treaty. After careful study of the Soviet reply, the United States concluded that most of the questions it raised had been answered by the proposal of October 26. In addition, the United States aide-mémoire included the following points: 1) the hope that all nations at war with Japan would participate in the conclusion of peace; 2) no nation had a perpetual power to veto the conclusion by others of peace with Japan; 3) the Cairo Declaration of 1943, like those of Yalta and Potsdam, was subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered; 4) upon conclusion of a peace settlement the military occupation of Japan should cease; 5) current international conditions made it reasonable for Japan to participate with other nations in arrangements for individual and collective self-defense, such as were envisaged by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; and 6) the treaty should not limit the Japanese peace-time economy nor deny Japan access to raw materials or participation in world trade.

1. Text of United States Note to the Far Eastern Commission on a Japanese Peace Treaty, Released to the Press, November 24, 1950.

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 242-243
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
General Statement ◽  
The Press ◽  
States Government ◽  
Far Eastern

There is given below a brief general statement of the type of treaty envisioned by the United States Government as proper to end the state of war with Japan. It is stressed that this statement is only suggestive and tentative, and does not commit the United States Government to the detailed content or wording of any future draft. It is expected that after there has been an opportunity to study this outline, there will be a series of informal discussions designed to elaborate on it and make clear any points which may be obscure at first glance.

International Law, US Foreign Policy and Post-9/11 Islamic Fundamentalism: The Legal Status of the 'War on Terror'

2008 ◽  
Vol 77 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 87-103
Author(s):  
Javaid Rehman ◽  
Saptarshi Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Significant Activity ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThe days immediately after 11 September 2001 saw considerable tension, anger and anxiety. These politically charged days witnessed significant activity within the United Nations and various agencies of international law. The world community rightly condemned the 9/11 attacks as cowardly actions and an unforgivable crime against humanity. The entire global public opinion expressed sympathy for the victims of 9/11 and empathised with the people of the United States. The show of human solidarity as well as the Resolutions within the United Nations were the responses from the international community and international law to the terrorist attacks on the United States. It becomes, therefore, quite ironic that the enormity of the 9/11 human tragedy was used by the United States government to undermine the established norms, practices, principles and framework of international law. Over the past six years, the United States foreign policy has continued to violate international law and brutalise human dignity. This paper critically examines the systematic violation of international norms under the banner of 'war on terror'. It takes the view that the 'war on terror' has had exactly the effect which it proclaimed to prevent-namely the growth of radicalisation, terrorism and Islamic extremism.

2. Text of Reply by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to United States Proposal for a Japanese Peace Treaty, Dated November 20, 1950, Released to the Press, November 24, 1950.

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-245
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
General Statement ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The Press ◽  
States Government

On October 26 of this year, during his conversation with J. A. Malik, Mr. Dulles presented a memorandum on the question of the peace treaty with Japan, containing a brief general statement of the type of treaty that, in the opinion of the United States Government, would be suitable for ending the state of war with Japan. In this connection the Soviet Government would like to obtain an explanation on several points of this memorandum.

The 1980s to the Present

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Barton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Organic Farming ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Health Food ◽  
Organic Certification ◽  
Organic Farmers ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Mainstream Press

While a few positive stories on organic farming appeared in the 1970s most mainstream press coverage mocked or dismissed organic farmers and consumers. Nevertheless, the growing army of consumer shoppers at health food stores in the United States made the movement impossible to ignore. The Washington Post and other newspapers shifted from negative caricatures of organic farming to a supportive position, particularly after the USDA launched an organic certification scheme in the United States under the leadership of Robert Bergland. Certification schemes in Europe and other major markets followed, leading to initiatives by the United Nations for the harmonization of organic certification through multilateral agencies. As organic standards proliferated in the 1990s the United Nations stepped in to resolve the regulatory fragmentation creating a global market for organic goods.

scholarly journals Introduction: International Institutions and Peaceful Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-459
Author(s):  
Kai He ◽  
T. V. Paul ◽  
Anders Wivel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Investment Bank ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The United Nations

The rise of “the rest,” especially China, has triggered an inevitable transformation of the so-called liberal international order. Rising powers have started to both challenge and push for the reform of existing multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and to create new ones, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The United States under the Trump administration, on the other hand, has retreated from the international institutions that the country once led or helped to create, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the Paris Agreement; the Iran nuclear deal; the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The United States has also paralyzed the ability of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to settle trade disputes by blocking the appointment of judges to its appellate body. Moreover, in May 2020, President Trump announced his decision to quit the Open Skies Treaty, an arms control regime designed to promote transparency among its members regarding military activities. During the past decade or so, both Russia and the United States have been dismantling multilateral arms control treaties one by one while engaging in new nuclear buildups at home.

scholarly journals States, firms, and security: How private actors implement sanctions, lessons learned from the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Francesco Giumelli ◽  
Michal Onderco
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
For Profit ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Private Actors

Abstract While the current practice of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the United States leans towards imposing only targeted sanctions in most of the cases, private actors often complain about inability to process financial transactions, ship goods, or deliver services in countries where sanctions targets are located. The impact of sanctions often ends up being widespread and indiscriminate because sanctions are implemented by for-profit actors. This article investigates how for-profit actors relate to the imposition of sanctions, how they reflect them in their decisions, and how they interact with the public authorities. The findings of our research show that for-profit actors, with the possible exception of the largest multinationals, do not engage with public authorities before the imposition of sanctions. The behaviour of for-profit actors in the implementation phase is in line with the assumption of firms and business as profit-maximisers. Weighting the profits from business against the costs of (non-)compliance and make the decisions that in their view maximise their profit. Indeed, de-risking seems to be the most common approach by the companies due to the uncertainties produced by the multiple and overlapping sanctions regimes imposed by the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document