Coalition Procurement for the Reconstruction of Iraq in the Crosshairs of WTO Law: The Obligations of the United States under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-282
Author(s):  
Dirk Pulkowski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Government Procurement ◽  
Economic Reason ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Basic Infrastructure ◽  
The U.S

Investigating the legality? Ha ha ha! That cracks me up. There is no international law that would prohibit this action by the Defense Department, nor is there any international court that France may appeal to. I of course think that this is the correct decision. Those countries who did not help win the war – who did not pay the price in blood – have no claim to the postwar profits. – Mike, Why I'm Right, Internet ForumDuring the Reagan administration, I helped negotiate … the “GATT Government Procurement Code”, later incorporated into the World Trade Organization's legal framework. The U.S. was the primary force behind this legal agreement. It was not motivated by altruism, but out of a belief that all signatory governments … and their respective tax payers would benefit from basing practices on economic factors rather than national favoritism. - Gene Tuttle, in responseInfrastructure in Iraq lies in tatters. Unscrupulous exploitation by Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime, burdensome economic sanctions and massive destruction during the U.S.-led military operation ‘Iraqi Freedom’ have turned Iraq into one of the world's most destitute countries. On the UN Human Poverty Index for 2003, Iraq ranks seventy-first out of ninety-six developing nations. The reconstruction of basic infrastructure is but one first step towards development and economic growth. Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, however, involves substantial economic interests. After all, the cake to be distributed for rebuilding Iraq is expected to exceed $100 billion. Some companies see on the horizon one of the most rewarding business opportunities “undertaken in over 50 years” At the same time, there is a growing suspicion that political or even personal biases of the United States' administration have a bigger role to play than economic reason when it comes to sharing the cake. In December 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, announced that some of America's trading partners, among them Canada, France, Germany and Russia, would be altogether excluded from competition for major reconstruction projects in Iraq. Public opinion in Europe was quick to brand the United States an international law-breaker. Can one State simply reserve to itself the final word on the Iraqi reconstruction money?

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.

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.

Exceeding the Limits of Territorial Bounds: The Helms-Burton Act

1997 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 161-213
Author(s):  
H. Scott Fairley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Trade Agreements ◽  
Title Iv ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Title Iii

SummaryThe author argues that the Helms-Burton Act violates general principles of international law. The analysis begins with a brief discussion of the extraterritorial purposes, structure, and operation of the act, followed by a survey of international responses to Helms-Burton by the principal trading partners of the United States: diplomatic protest, formalized dispute settlement under international trade agreements, retaliatory blocking leghlation, and multi-hteral scrutiny in and by international institutions. The author then turns to principles of jurisdiction with a view to demonstrating that Helms-Burton does not meet the applicable thresholds to support either the private right to sue for trafficking in confiscated property under Title III of the act or the governmental exclusion of designated aliens from admission to the United States under Title IV. In this regard, substantive international law arguments in relation to extraterritoriality and nationality, remoteness, the effects doctrine, human rights, and the reasonable expectations of other nations are also considered.

scholarly journals Mexican Structural Reforms and the United States Congress

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (18) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Ana María Zorrilla Noriega
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
United States Congress ◽  
Structural Reforms ◽  
Efficient Manner ◽  
Bilateral Relationship ◽  
Mexican Government ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The U.S

Diverse structural reforms were enacted in Mexico during 2013 and 2014. Since these reforms were made on the constitutional level, they must be translated into specific laws and regulations; and more importantly, they must be implemented in an efficient manner. As Mexico is experiencing this transformation, its relations with United States are also evolving. This transition will probably imply new challenges with regard to different aspects of the bilateral relationship. Considering that the U.S. Congress plays a significant role in shaping those relations, the purpose of this article is to analyze some significant issues that have received or are likely to receive special attention in the U.S. Congress. This article is divided into seven sections. The first one presents an analysis of the complexity of U.S.-Mexico relations. The second part includes an explanation regarding Mexican reforms of 2013 and 2014, as well as the resulted transition in the bilateral relationship. The next four sections address significant pillars of this relationship: security, economy, migration, and energy. Each of these parts comprises a general overview of the U.S.-Mexico relations in that specific matter; a description of the views of the Mexican government and reforms of its constitutional and legal framework; and an analysis of the most relevant legislative actions that have recently taken place or are likely to receive attention in the U.S. Congress. The seventh section addresses other relevant aspects that should be taken into account in the policyand law-making processes.

Remarks by Stephen Pomper

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 123-127
Author(s):  
Stephen Pomper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Single Event ◽  
Humanitarian Emergency ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Face ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The U.S

We are having this conversation now because of the April 7 strikes on the Shayrat Airfield in Syria, but the question of how one justifies forcible measures in the context of a humanitarian emergency, and in the face of a deadlocked Security Council, is one that deserves urgent attention beyond the context of any single event. Progress toward answering this question has, however, been mired in a long-standing debate between those who believe that there is no credible international law justification for humanitarian intervention—and that the U.S. government should instead justify interventions like those taken at Kosovo and Shayrat as morally “legitimate”—and those who believe a legal justification can and should be put forward. I am very much in the latter camp and will use my time now to explain how I arrived at this position as a policy and as a legal matter by looking at three questions: the first question is whether legal justification is the direction that the United States should go in as a matter of policy. The second question is whether legal justification is credibly available as a matter of international law. The third question (which assumes the answer to the first and second is yes) is how to go about articulating and disseminating such a justification. Let me take these in order.

U.S. & Soviet Agriculture

Worldview ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 8-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lester R. Brown
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Grain Trade ◽  
Oil Exports ◽  
The World ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Economic Considerations ◽  
The U.S

Each day two 20,000-ton freighters loaded with grain leave the United States for the Soviet Union. This flow of grain between two major adversaries is influenced by economic considerations such as the size of the Soviet grain deficit, the U.S. capacity to supply, and the Soviet ability to pay. Political considerations include the risk to both trading partners of such a heavy interdependence, whether as supplier or market.Never before has a country dominated the world grain trade as the United States does today. Its 55 per cent share of world grain exports in 1981 easily overshadows Saudi Arabia's 24 per cent share of world oil exports in 1978. And while the amount of oil traded internationally has been falling since 1979, grain shipments are continuing to grow.

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

scholarly journals Children Asylum Seekers Face Challenges in the United States

Refuge ◽  
2002 ◽  
pp. 13-20
Author(s):  
Andrew Morton ◽  
Wendy A. Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Made In

This article outlines U.S. policy toward children asylum seekers. It highlights the gaps in U.S. detention and asylum policy which jeopardize the protection of children. It also discusses advances made in recent years, such as issuance of the U.S. “Guidelines for Children’s Asylum Claims” which establish evidentiary, procedural, and legal standards for asylum adjudicators dealing with children’s claims. Finally, it suggests reforms that are necessary to bring the United States into compliance with international law and to ensure that children are provided the refuge they deserve.

scholarly journals Canada–U.S. Trade Relationships: Developments and Implications

1987 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Garth Coffin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Individual Country ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Trade Relationships ◽  
Merchandise Trade ◽  
The U.S

Canada and the United States are the world's largest trading partners. The total volume of two-way merchandise trade in 1985 was $165 billion Canadian ($124 billion U.S.). Canadian dependence on U.S. markets has grown to the point that nearly 80% of our exports are destined for our southern neighbor. By the same token, more than 70% of Canada's imports originate in the U.S. That volume represents 20% of total exports from the U.S., the largest proportion going to any individual country. Obviously, trade relations between Canada and the U.S. are very important to both countries. Indeed, given their combined role in total world trade, the importance of trade relations between them goes beyond whatever it might be to those two countries alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document