Basic U. S. Sources For Current Research In International Law: An Elementary Vade-Mecum

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolf Sprudzs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
The U.S

Among the many old and new actors on the international stage of nations the United States is one of the most active and most important. The U.S. is a member of most existing intergovernmental organizations, participates in hundreds upon hundreds of international conferences and meetings every year and, in conducting her bilateral and multilateral relations with the other members of the community of nations, contributes very substantially to the development of contemporary international law. The Government of the United States has a policy of promptly informing the public about developments in its relations with other countries through a number of documentary publication, issued by the Department of State

Letting the Exception Prove the Rule

2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Byers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Military Campaigns ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

It is unlikely that George W. Bush feels constrained by international law when deciding whether to use military force abroad. Nevertheless, many of the United States' allies are reluctant to cooperate with and participate in military actions that cannot reasonably be justified under international law. And supportive allies, while perhaps not strictly necessary to the United States in its recent and foreseeable military campaigns, do make the military option easier to pursue. A war against Iraq would be difficult without access to bases and airspace in countries as diverse as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and Canada. For this reason, at least, it would seem to be worth the president's while to adhere to international law where possible and, where this is not possible, to seek to change the rules.International lawyers in the Department of State, together with lawyers in other parts of the U.S. government, have excelled in shaping the law to accommodate the interests of the United States. One example, though by no means the only one, concerns the response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 913-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Nash Leich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The U.S

In a notice issued by David P. Stewart, Administrator for Iranian Claims, under date of June 24, 1983, the Department of State informed claimants before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal at The Hague of recent developments at the Tribunal with specific regard to settlement of claims. The notice read in part:On two recent occasions, the Tribunal had refused to certify as Tribunal awards settlements submitted by U.S. claimants and Iran. In one case the amount of the proposed settlement significantly exceeded the amount of the claim. In the other, the settlement was in the full amount of the claim plus interest, but the settlement required that, after the settlement had been paid from the Security Account at the N.V. Settlement Bank of Netherlands, more than half of the amount of the settlement would be paid to Iran for taxes allegedly owed. The U.S. claimant had previously denied that any such taxes were owed. The United States—and, to the best of the Department of State’s knowledge, all U.S. claimants—has consistently denied that Iranian counterclaims for taxes are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 547-552
Author(s):  
Marian Nash
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
The Bahamas ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Attorneys General ◽  
The Government

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.Alan J. Kreczko, Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State, appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 8, 1992, to testify in support of various pending treaties, among them four extradition treaties: the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, signed at Nassau on March 9, 1990; the Protocol Amending the Treaty on Extradition between the United States of America and Australia, signed on September 4, 1990, at Seoul, Republic of Korea (where the Asia-Pacific Attorneys General Conference was being held); the Supplementary Treaty to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning Extradition, signed at Washington on October 21, 1986; and the Second Supplementary Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Spain, signed at Madrid on February 9, 1988.

Patterns of Living in the U.S. and Brazil: A Comparison

1961 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Lynn Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Differentiation ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Cultural Patterns ◽  
The Public ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
The Many ◽  
Ways Of Life ◽  
The U.S

The writer will attempt to draw attention to major like and unlike elements in the cultural patterns of Brazil and the United States, with an eye to mutual understanding. Obviously, this constitutes a task of considerable magnitude, and much reflection was required in order to decide which of the many possibilities should receive attention. Finally, it was decided to center on the following four aspects of the general subject: (1) the diversity of patterns of living in the United States, and the even greater diversity of ways of life in Brazil; (2) the higher degree of social differentiation in the United States, in comparison with contemporary Brazil; (3) the similarities and differences in patterns of living which result from the class structures found in the respective societies; and (4) the effects upon general social and cultural patterns of the institutions which have played the most important roles in producing the distinguishing characteristics of each of the societies: in the case of Brazil, the great patriarchial family or kinship unit, and in the case of the United States, the public school.

Verán ustedes las chozas más humildes. El discurso de pobreza en la diplomacia pública cardenista dirigida a Estados Unidos

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-281
Author(s):  
Sylvia Dümmer Scheel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Government ◽  
Lazaro Cardenas ◽  
The New Deal

El artículo analiza la diplomacia pública del gobierno de Lázaro Cárdenas centrándose en su opción por publicitar la pobreza nacional en el extranjero, especialmente en Estados Unidos. Se plantea que se trató de una estrategia inédita, que accedió a poner en riesgo el “prestigio nacional” con el fin de justificar ante la opinión pública estadounidense la necesidad de implementar las reformas contenidas en el Plan Sexenal. Aprovechando la inusual empatía hacia los pobres en tiempos del New Deal, se construyó una imagen específica de pobreza que fuera higiénica y redimible. Ésta, sin embargo, no generó consenso entre los mexicanos. This article analyzes the public diplomacy of the government of Lázaro Cárdenas, focusing on the administration’s decision to publicize the nation’s poverty internationally, especially in the United States. This study suggests that this was an unprecedented strategy, putting “national prestige” at risk in order to explain the importance of implementing the reforms contained in the Six Year Plan, in the face of public opinion in the United States. Taking advantage of the increased empathy felt towards the poor during the New Deal, a specific image of hygienic and redeemable poverty was constructed. However, this strategy did not generate agreement among Mexicans.

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.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-517
Author(s):  
Marian Nash (Leich)
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Government ◽  
Contemporary Practice

On March 3,1997, President William J. Clinton transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification as a treaty the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders, signed at Hong Kong on December 20,1996. In his letter of transmittal, President Clinton pointed out that, upon its entry into force, the Agreement would “enhance cooperation between the law enforcement communities of the United States and Hong Kong, and … provide a framework and basic protections for extraditions after the reversion of Hong Kong to the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997.” The President continued: Given the absence of an extradition treaty with the People’s Republic of China, this Treaty would provide the means to continue an extradition relationship with Hong Kong after reversion and avoid a gap in law enforcement. It will thereby make a significant contribution to international law enforcement efforts.The provisions of this Agreement follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. In addition, the Agreement contains several provisions specially designed in light of the particular status of Hong Kong. The Agreement’s basic protections for fugitives are also made expressly applicable to fugitives surrendered by the two parties before the new treaty enters into force.

Explorer without a country: the question of Vilhjalmur Stefansson's citizenship

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-241
Author(s):  
Janice Cavell ◽  
Jeff Noakes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Canadian Arctic ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Dual Citizenship ◽  
American Citizen ◽  
American Citizenship ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Government

ABSTRACTConfusion has long existed on the subject of Vilhjalmur Stefansson's citizenship. A Canadian (that is, a British subject) by birth, Stefansson was brought up and educated in the United States. When his father became an American citizen in 1887, according to the laws of the time Stefansson too became an American. Dual citizenship was not then permitted by either the British or the American laws. Therefore, Stefansson was no longer a British subject. After he took command of the government sponsored Canadian Arctic Expedition in 1913, Stefansson was careful to give the impression that his status had never changed. Although Stefansson swore an oath of allegiance to King George V in May 1913, he did not take the other steps that would have been required to restore him to being Canadian. But, by an American act passed in 1907, this oath meant the loss of Stefansson's American citizenship. In the 1930s American officials informed Stefansson that he must apply for naturalisation in order to regain it. From 1913 until he received his American citizenship papers in 1937, Stefansson was a man without a country.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1969 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-336
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Department Of Defense ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Counsel ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Legal Adviser ◽  
Contemporary Practice

The material for this section is compiled by Stephen L. Gibson, attorney in the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State. Jerome H. Silber, of the Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense, has provided material originating in that Department.

scholarly journals International Law in the US Legal System

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The U.S

International Law in the U.S. Legal System provides a wide-ranging overview of how international law intersects with the domestic legal system of the United States, and points out various unresolved issues and areas of controversy. Curtis Bradley explains the structure of the U.S. legal system and the various separation of powers and federalism considerations implicated by this structure, especially as these considerations relate to the conduct of foreign affairs. Against this backdrop, he covers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, executive agreements, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. He also explores a number of issues that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as treaty withdrawal, foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation, war powers, extradition, and extraterritoriality. This book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic, including various actions taken during the Trump administration, while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating to the U.S. Constitutional Founding. Written by one of the most cited international law scholars in the United States, the book is a resource for lawyers, law students, legal scholars, and judges from around the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document