9 The Foreign Act of State

Author(s):  
Mann F A

Public policy dominates one of the most difficult and most perplexing topics which, in the field of foreign affairs, may face the municipal judge in England: the doctrine of the foreign act of State displays in every respect such uncertainty and confusion and rests on so slippery a basis that its application becomes a matter of speculation. It is, therefore, necessary to discuss the history and development of the doctrine in England and the United States; its present meaning and effect in England; its scope; its legal character and justification. It is shown that the implications of the doctrine in England and the United States of America are so interwoven that much attention will have to be given to the law in the latter country.

1909 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 354-394
Author(s):  
Peter C. Hains

The question whether or not the United States Government should construct fortifications commanding the entrances to the Panama Canal is one that must be determined by law or public policy. The law is set forth in the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, and while this does not in terms forbid the construction of fortifications, nevertheless, the principle of neutralization which is established by that treaty imposes on us certain obligations, and if those obligations set a bar to their construction we are morally bound to abstain from constructing them. If the treaty imposes no such obligation, then the question should be determined by policy. Which is the better policy, to construct them or not to construct them?


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien M. Armstrong

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Of all of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, perhaps none inspire the level of interest and debate among both scholars and laypersons as the freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and it has long been held that “speech” encompasses not merely spoken words butany conduct which is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”


Author(s):  
Julius Henry Cohen ◽  
Kenneth Dayton

This article focuses on the federal arbitration law. On February 12, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed the United States Arbitration Law, which became effective on January 1, 1926. This act reversed the hoary doctrine that agreements for arbitration are revocable at will and are unenforceable, and in the language of the statute itself, they are made “valid, enforceable and irrevocable” within the limits of federal jurisdiction. There are three evils which arbitration is intended to correct: (1) the long delay usually incident to a proceeding at law, in equity or in admiralty, especially in recent years in centers of commercial activity, where there has arisen great congestion of the court calendars; (2) the expense of litigation; and (3) the failure, through litigation, to reach a decision regarded as just when measured by the standards of the business world. The article then argues that the proposed law rests upon the constitutional provision by which Congress is authorized to establish and control inferior federal courts. It also contends that sound public policy demands specific enforcement of arbitration agreements by the law.


1871 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. B. Sprague

The past session of Parliament has witnessed the passing of an Act for the regulation of Life Assurance Companies in the United Kingdom, which, while introducing great changes in the law, still stops very far short of the system of legislation which has been for several years in operation in a few of the United States of America, and which is warmly approved of and urgently recommended for adoption by some persons in this country. The present may therefore be considered a fitting time for reviewing what has been done and considering whether any further legislation is desirable, and if any, of what nature it should be.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 68-79
Author(s):  
Vladimir F. Pecheritsa

The article analyzes the hegemonic policy of the largest and most influential state in the world – the United States, supported under the justified concept of “peculiarity” and exclusivity of America. Using this term, Washington imposes its only “correct” and necessary policy for the development of countries and peoples. Showing numerous examples, the author exposes the deceit and duplicity of such a policy, its rejection by most countries of the world. The article is intended for specialists in foreign affairs and those who study the place and role of the United States in the contemporary world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document