scholarly journals The reply of the President and Council to a letter addressed to them by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the subject of the cooperation of different Nations in Meteorological Observations. Communicated by direction of the President and Council

1854 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 188-192
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Uniform System ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Meteorological Observations ◽  
The Government

Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of March the 4th, transmitting, by direction of the Earl of Malmesbury, several documents received from foreign governments in reply to a proposal made to them by Her Majesty’s Government, for their cooperation in establishing a uniform system of recording meteorological observations, and requesting the opinion of the President and Council of the Royal Society in reference to a proposition which has been made by the Government of the United States, respecting the manner in which the proposed cooperation should be carried out.

scholarly journals Note on a correspondence between Her Majesty's government and the president and council of the royal society regarding meteorological observations to be made by sea and land

1867 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 29-38 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Uniform System ◽  
Foreign Office ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Meteorological Observations ◽  
The Government

Her Majesty’s Government having been pleased to consult the Royal Society on several occasions in the last few years regarding the proper steps to be taken by this country, under the sanction and authority of its Government, for the prosecution, in cooperation with the Governments of other States in Europe and America, of systematically conducted meteorological observations by Land and Sea, it may be desirable to offer to the Fellows a résumé of the correspondence, and of the suggestions which from time to time have been tendered on the part of the Society to the several departments of the State. The correspondence commenced by a communication from the Foreign Office in March 1852, transmitting, by direction of the Earl of Malmesbury, several documents received from foreign governments in reply to a proposition which had been made to them by Her Majesty’s Government, for their cooperation in establishing a uniform system of recording meteorological observations; and requesting the opinion of the President and Council of the Royal Society in reference to these documents, and more especially in reference to a communication from the Government of the United States of America respecting the manner in which the proposed cooperation might be carried out.

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.

Plus ça Change: The 1922 U.S. Congressional Debate on the Balfour Declaration

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-106
Author(s):  
Khaled Elgindy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Palestinian Arab ◽  
The U.S

This essay looks at the hearing held by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives in April 1922 on the subject of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as well as the broader congressional debate over the Balfour Declaration at that crucial time. The landmark hearing, which took place against the backdrop of growing unrest in Palestine and just prior to the League of Nations' formal approval of Britain's Mandate over Palestine, offers a glimpse into the cultural and political mindset underpinning U.S. support for the Zionist project at the time as well as the ways in which the political discourse in the United States has, or has not, changed since then. Despite the overwhelming support for the Zionist project in Congress, which unanimously endorsed Balfour in September 1922, the hearing examined all aspects of the issue and included a remarkably diverse array of viewpoints, including both anti-Zionist Jewish and Palestinian Arab voices.

The History of the Department of State: VII

1911 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-432
Author(s):  
Gaillard Hunt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Provision ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government

Having considered in former numbers of this Journal the sometime and occasional duties of the Department, including among them certain contingent duties which it has never been called upon to perform, we may now advance to a consideration of its habitual functions.The organic act of the Department prescribed that the Secretary of State should keep “ the seal of the United States.” It is the mark of the supreme authority of the United States, and before the government went into operation under the Constitution, was in the custody of the Secretary of Congress, being used to verify all important acts, whether executive or legislative; but the debate on executive departments in the first constitutional congress indicated that Congress did not contemplate keeping the seal any longer, and thought it would necessarily pass to the custody of the Executive. The President did, in fact, take it under his control as soon as he assumed office and before legal provision had been made for it.

Central Treaty Organization

1966 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 845-847
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Council Of Ministers

The fourteenth session of the Council of Ministers of die Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was held in Ankara, Turkey, on April 20–21, 1966, under the chairmanship of Ihsan Sabri Caglayangil, the Foreign Minister of Turkey. Others attending the session were Abbas Aram, Foreign Minister of Iran; Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Foreign Minister of Pakistan; Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom; and Dean Rusk, Secretary of State of the United States. The session had been preceded by a meeting of the CENTO Military Committee held in Tehran, Iran, on April 5–6.

Southeast Asia Treaty Organization

1966 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-863
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization

Tenth meeting: The tenth meeting of the Council of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was held in London on May 3–5, 1965, under the chairmanship of Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom. Other member governments were represented by Paul Hasluck, Minister for External Affairs of Australia; D. J. Eyre, Minister of Defense of New Zealand; Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan; Librado D. Cayco, Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines; Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Aflairs of Thailand; and George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State of the United States. Achille Clarac, French Ambassador in Bangkok and Council representative for France, also attended the London session as an observer. (On April 20 the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs had announced that France would not send a delegation to the meeting although Ambassador Clarac would be present as an observer only.)

I. Organizing the Government for Participation in World Affairs

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 913-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter H. C. Laves ◽  
Francis O. Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Public Servants ◽  
Authoritarian State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Post War

Looking at the post-war period, it seems obvious that the government of the United States will give more attention to foreign affairs than it has in any comparable period of American history. How can the machinery for conducting foreign relations best be organized to meet these increasing responsibilities?The conduct of foreign relations in the modern world is no simple matter. Technical experts, intelligence systems, ability to negotiate, national political stability, a large and loyal staff of public servants—these are but some of the national requisites for effective participation in world affairs. The mobilization and organization of the best staff resources in the country, the negotiation of national policies, and then of international agreements, constitute a formidable task under any system of government.The conduct of foreign relations is, of course, easiest in a completely authoritarian state. It is made immeasurably more difficult by any division of authority. In most non-authoritarian governments, some division of authority has been found desirable, even at the expense of occasional awkwardness of procedure, because thereby the dangers of usurpation of power are minimized. The United States has gone farther than any democratic country in dividing responsibility in foreign affairs. Not only is there the usual distinction between legislative and executive authority, but the independence of the two branches has been so far underlined that the achievement of over-all government policies (as distinct from legislative and executive policies) is extremely difficult unless the party relationships are just right between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Logan Act: Paper Tiger or Sleeping Giant?

1966 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Detlev F. Vagts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Foreign Government ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Criminal Statute ◽  
The Government

For 167 years the shadow of the Logan Act has fallen upon those Americans who trespass on the Federal monopoly of international negotiations which it creates. In theory, up to three years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine await those Americans who, without authority, communicate with a foreign government intending either (a) to influence that government with respect to a controversy with the United States or (b) to defeat the measures of the United States. Though only one indictment and no trial have taken place under the Act, who can tell when a new Administration, thinner skinned or harder pressed than its predecessors, may in its irritation call into play this sleeping giant? Now, at a time when domestic opposition to certain aspects of our foreign policy has reached a pitch unknown for many years, it would be well to reflect upon this curious product of the confluence of criminal law and foreign relations law before we are in fact confronted by a test of its strength. All could be the losers from an unpremeditated encounter—the defendant by finding himself, perhaps to his very great surprise, the first person subjected to the Act’s severe criminal penalties, the Government by finding itself stripped of its long accustomed protection by a ruling that the statute as it now reads is unconstitutionally vague or restrictive of free speech. Despite its long desuetude as a criminal statute, the Act represents a principle which I cannot help but think is, at its core, a salutary one; that America in sensitive dealings with other governments “speaks with one voice.” It embodies the concept of bipartisanship, that quarrels about foreign relations are fought out domestically and not with the adversary. It deters sometimes very ill-advised attempts to take the conduct of foreign affairs into foolish and unauthorized hands. On the other hand, it cuts into freedoms which we regard as having the highest value, and many of the situations in which its use has been suggested clearly involve no danger that would justify such a restraint.

Claims Against Turkey

1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 346-349
Author(s):  
E. Russell Lutz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
High Commissioner ◽  
The Government

In connection with the war conditions which existed in Turkey from 1914 to 1922, a number of international claims arose against the Government of Turkey, including a large number on behalf of citizens of the United States. Negotiations with respect to these latter claims were undertaken by American and Turkish representatives, and on December 24, 1923, the American High Commissioner at Constantinople (Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol), and the delegate of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Dr. Adnan Bey), entered into a claims agreement by an exchange of notes which provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document