scholarly journals Frontiers of International Law: Counteracting the Exercise of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Lefeber
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

On 22 November 1996, the Council of the European Union adopted a framework regulation and agreed to joint action to ‘protect’ the interests of the European Union and its citizens against the extraterritorial application of legislation by non-member states. These measures were adopted in response to the extraterritorial application of certain measures by the United States, concerning trade with and investment in Cuba, as well as investment in Iran and Libya. These United States measures apply to all natural and legal persons irrespective of their nationality, residency, or place of activity. Thus, even nationals of a member state of the European Union residing and active in the European Union must comply with the United States measures. The enactment of this legislation marks a new episode in the on-going battle between the United States and the European Union over the frontiers of a state's (or an international organization's) jurisdiction to prescribe. This time, however, the European Union counteracted by the adoption of measures which can partly be characterized as retorsion measures and partly as countermeasures. The adoption of these measures by the European Union raises questions with respect to the legitimacy of the retorsion measures and the legality of the countermeasures.

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act Is Consistent with International Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 434-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brice M. Clagett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Argument ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Title Iii ◽  
Moral High Ground ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, otherwise known as the Helms-Burton Act, became law on March 12, 1996. Title III of the legislation creates a federal cause of action, on behalf of U.S. citizens whose property was confiscated without compensation by Cuba, against those who “traffic” in that property. Several governments—notably Canada, Mexico and those of the European Union, whose corporate citizens are the principal “traffickers”—have denounced the legislation as an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction that violates customary international law. These governments apparently see nothing wrong with permitting—even encouraging—their nationals to use and profit from property that rightfully belongs to others. The United States not only commands the moral high ground on this issue; it also has the better of the legal argument.

scholarly journals The Development of Whistleblowing Laws in the United States and Europe (de lege ferenda remarks)

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-155
Author(s):  
Łucja Kobroń-Gąsiorowska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Work Process ◽  
Free Markets ◽  
Member States ◽  
Communist Countries ◽  
Established Democracies

Corruption, harassment in a workplace, practices contrary to the correct work process, and many others are irregularities that can arise in any enterprise. This is a problem that affects established democracies and free markets and post-communist countries that are transitioning to democracy and market economies. While the causes of irregularities vary, the tools often suggested tackling them include that do not necessarily encourage potential whistleblowers to report them, whether inside or outside the organization. This article discusses the role of whistleblowing as a whistle­blowing tool. Describes the law and whistleblowing in a comparative context, focusing on the United States and the European Union. The article then concludes with recommendations for strengthening whistleblowing in Europe, where reporting irregularities is just beginning, and the level of protection differs between the Member States.

scholarly journals Raising compulsory automobile insurance minimum amounts: a case study from the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2019/4) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The United States ◽  
Automobile Insurance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Automobile Accidents ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Union Member States

This article discusses a decision both European Union Member States and states in the United States must make: whether to raise their compulsory automobile insurance minimum amounts. The authors review a case study from the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and conclude a proposed increase in the compulsory minimum amounts should pass the legislator. The purpose of compulsory automobile insurance is to compensate victims of automobile accidents. Due to inflation, the minimum amounts in Pennsylvania no longer compensate adequately. Moreover, the data do not support the contention that an increase in the minimum amounts will cause large increases in premiums and uninsured rates. The authors conclude that compulsory minimum amounts should be periodically reviewed, as they are in the European Union, and that arguments about large increases in premiums and uninsured rates should be subjected to a careful review based on data.

scholarly journals Multi-Omics Research Trends in Sepsis: A Bibliometric, Comparative Analysis Between the United States, the European Union 28 Member States, and China

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Evangelatos ◽  
Kapaettu Satyamoorthy ◽  
Georgia Levidou ◽  
Pia Bauer ◽  
Helmut Brand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Trends ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document