Public International Law and the Conflict of Laws: The European Response to the United States Export Administration Regulations

1984 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. V. Lowe
2021 ◽  
pp. 187-217
Author(s):  
Joop Voetelink

AbstractThe sovereignty of states is reflected in the notion of jurisdiction, empowering them to enact and enforce laws and regulations, and to adjudicate disputes in court. The jurisdiction of states and the exercise thereof is primarily territorial, limiting the exercise of state authority to their respective national territories except in specific situations. However, in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, it would be hard to maintain that a state should be denied the right to exercise its sovereign powers beyond national borders when there are reasonable grounds for doing so. Consequently, the exercise of extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction has become more accepted, although it is limited to particular situations and circumstances. These have to do with the exercise of jurisdiction over nationals, vessels and aircraft registered in or pertaining to the legislating state, as well as certain activities aimed at undermining the state’s security or solvency or which constitute crimes under international law. However, in principle it is not allowed to regulate activities of foreign nationals or entities operating wholly outside the legislating state’s territory. One area where this has become increasingly prevalent is through the exercise of export controls over foreign nationals and legal persons. The United States (US) has long been engaged in the exercise of this type of extraterritorial jurisdiction and is, without doubt, the state that is most proactive in doing so. This chapter considers US extraterritorial claims with respect to its export control and sanctions legislation and explores the limits of this practice under public international law.


2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hepp

James Brown Scott played a key role in the growth of public international law in the United States from the 1890s to the 1940s. While little remembered today, he was well-known among his contemporaries as a leading spokesman for a new and important discipline. Scott rose from obscure middle-class origins to occupy a prominent and influential place as an international lawyer who shared his legal expertise with seven presidents and ten secretaries of state. By examining his life we gain insight into the establishment of public international law as a discipline and on the era when lawyersqualawyers began to help shape American foreign policy.


1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
A H Angelo

This article is a book review of Makitaro Hotta Laws and Politics of the International Relations of Japan and the United States (published jointly by the School of International Service, American University, Washington, and the College of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, 1996) 195 pages. The book is a compendium of documents and materials relating to Japan and United States relations from the Cairo Declaration of 1 December 1943 to the Japan/US Joint Declaration on Security Alliance for the 21st Century of 17 April 1996. Angelo praises the book’s versatility, as it can be used for comparative law classes and for international relations programmes, for constitutional law teaching, and for aspects of public international law. 


1907 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
George B. Davis

International law owes much to American judges and to American jurists. The list of those who have contributed to its advancement is not short and includes the names of Marshall, Story and Field, Kent, Wheaton, with his able commentators, Dana and Lawrence, Halleck and Lieber and, among recent writer’s, Taylor, Moore and Snow. Although his name is not connected with a general treatise on the subject of public international law, it may be doubted whether any of his fellow-workers in that field have rendered a more important service to humanity and to international good neighborhood, than has Dr. Francis Lieber in his memorable “Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field.”


1985 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-198
Author(s):  
A. V. Lowe

This paper offers an analysis of some of the problems arising in those international disputes concerning issues of public international law which do not present any proximate threat to international peace or security. It does so in the context of an examination of procedures for settling disputes over jurisdiction in public international law, disputes of the kind which arose in 1982 when the United States’ right to control—that is, its jurisdiction over—exports from Western Europe to the Soviet Union was challenged by the EEC and its member states. The analysis is also intended to have general relevance to all international legal disputes in which individuals are directly involved as disputants with or alongside states.


2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Minnerop

Since 1994, the United States of America have been warning of a new threat posed by so-called ‘rogue states'. (1) Following 11th September 2001, a number of these so-called rogue states have been targeted as responsible for the attacks or as a result of fears that they are plan-ning further terrorist acts. The classification of certain states by degrading terminology by the United States not only seems to be fully justifiablevis-à-visthe realisation of an emerging danger; furthermore, it could be seen as movement within the international community to-wards the identification of states which threaten international security. Thus, it is important to look behind the terms: which states fall into the category of rogue states and what consequences could follow for public international law from such classification?


2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 485-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Collins

It is not generally appreciated that Francis Mann was not an international lawyer at all by training. His thesis at Berlin University was in company law. It was only after he had been in England for some time that he began to write about private international law,1 and his interest in public international law was developed as a result of his friendship with Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. It was not until 1943 that he published anything about public international law, and in that year he published a substantial article in two parts on the relationship between national law and international law, in which he built on the previous work on Judicial Aspects of Foreign Relations by Louis Jaffe2 and on acts of state by Sir William Holdsworth.3 Subsequently he came to make this subject his own, at least in England,4 where the subject has never attracted the attention which it has attracted in the United States.5


2020 ◽  
pp. 335-358
Author(s):  
Pamela K. Bookman

This chapter discusses the debate that the Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States has sparked regarding the status of adjudicative jurisdiction under public international law. The Fourth Restatement has received considerable attention for its conclusion that adjudicative jurisdiction is not a concern of public international law. But exercises of adjudicative jurisdiction around the world are not static. Innovations and expansions of international adjudication in courts around the world are in process and looming on the horizon. This chapter surveys these developments and considers whether they could lead the next Restatement to alter its position on adjudicative jurisdiction. It also evaluates how these developments could translate into state practice and expressions of opinio juris that might affect the international law status of adjudicative jurisdiction.


Author(s):  
V.C. Govindaraj

This chapter examines the ‘vested or acquired rights’ theory of Professor A. V. Dicey in England and Professor J. H. Beale in the United States, which is traceable to Ulrich Huber (1635-94), a Dutch jurist-cum-judge. Huber’s formulations in respect of the binding force of law in general and conflict of laws in particular is derived from the sovereignty of states which, according to him, is unlimited and absolute. This view is in keeping with Hobbesian theory of sovereignty of states. The chapter aims to impress upon the Indian legal fraternity that it is high time to reorient their attitude and approach to conflict of laws or private international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document