Bilateral Diplomacy: Rethinking the Jamaica-US Shiprider Agreement

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzette Haughton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Trafficking ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Implementation Phase ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Complex Interdependence ◽  
Interdependence Theory

AbstractThe Shiprider Agreement — an important aspect of Jamaica-US bilateral diplomacy — represents the strength of diplomatic engagements that have been used to address the cross-border drug-trafficking problem. To substantiate this claim, this article examines the Jamaica-US Shiprider Agreement on three criteria.First, examining some examples of counter-drug cooperation before the Shiprider Agreement demonstrates that the fundamental basis for the Agreement is premised on a positive Jamaica-US relationship. This relationship, along with the stipulated obligations enshrined in the 1988 Vienna Convention, impelled the United States' proposal of the Shiprider Agreement. Second, the article uses complex interdependence theory to test the negotiation process and the outcome of the Agreement. Findings demonstrate that complex interdependence mainly confirms explanations of the foreign policy outcomes and diplomatic conduct displayed in the Jamaica-US Shiprider case. Finally, the article assesses the breakdown in the negotiation process and the initial implementation phase of the Agreement, arguing that this breakdown must be seen in context given the Agreement's successful ratification and its non-controversial continuation. The article concludes that despite the instances of breakdown, the birth and provision of the judicious Jamaica-US Shiprider Agreement owed much to the success of diplomacy.

scholarly journals U.S. Arrest of Former Mexican Defense Minister on Drug Charges Poses Challenges for Future Counter-Narcotics Cooperation

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 334-340
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Drug Trafficking ◽  
The United States ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Mutual Legal Assistance ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The U.S

In October 2020, the United States arrested former Mexican Defense Secretary General Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda on drug conspiracy charges, accusing him of accepting bribes to aid a Mexican cartel in evading law enforcement and transporting drugs into the United States. Cienfuegos's arrest sparked diplomatic protests from Mexico, which negotiated to gain Cienfuegos's release before exonerating him and publicizing the U.S. investigation file in what the United States called a breach of the countries’ mutual legal assistance treaty. The incident also prompted Mexico to pass a new law curtailing cooperation with foreign agents and potentially imperiling the long-standing U.S.-Mexico alliance in the fight against cross-border drug trafficking.

scholarly journals The Reshaping Oil and Arms Trade between the United States and GCC: Is the Theory of Complex Interdependence Still Prevailing?

2021 ◽  
pp. 002190962110588
Author(s):  
Erhan Akkas ◽  
Suleyman Orhun Altiparmak
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Complex Interdependence ◽  
Gcc Countries ◽  
Arms Trade ◽  
Interdependence Theory ◽  
The Military

This paper makes use of interdependence theory to analyse the historical development of the economic relations between the GCC countries and the United States. The focus will be on oil and arms trade between the GCC countries and the United States. The results show that while the military and security dependence of the GCC countries on the United States remains relatively intact, the dependence of the United States on the natural resources of the GCC region has decreased. In light of this, the paper suggests that the historical interdependence between the GCC countries and the United States has recently evolved into a unilateral dependence and that the GCC countries’ natural resources are directed towards Asian countries.

Soviet Tanks, American Sedans: Traces of India’s Cold War-era Hedging Towards the United States, 1966–1971

2021 ◽  
pp. 097492842098309
Author(s):  
Bipin K. Tiwary ◽  
Anubhav Roy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Food Aid ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Evaluative Study ◽  
Complex Interdependence ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
Food Shortages

Having fought its third war and staring at food shortages, independent India needed to get its act together both militarily and economically by the mid-1960s. With the United States revoking its military assistance and delaying its food aid despite New Delhi’s devaluation of the rupee, India’s newly elected Indira Gandhi government turned to deepen its ties with the Soviet Union in 1966 with the aim of balancing the United States internally through a rearmament campaign and externally through a formal alliance with Moscow. The US formation of a triumvirate with Pakistan and China in India’s neighbourhood only bolstered its intent. Yet India consciously limited the extent of both its balancing strategies and allowed adequate space to simultaneously adopt the contradictory sustenance of its complex interdependence with the United States economically. Did this contrasting choice of strategies constitute India’s recourse to hedging after 1966 until 1971, when it liberated Bangladesh by militarily defeating a US-aligned Pakistan? Utilising a historical-evaluative study of archival data and the contents of a few Bollywood films from the period, this paper seeks to address the question by empirically establishing the extents of India’s balancing of, and complex interdependence with, the United States.

Fun v. Pulgar and Albergrin

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 722-727
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Domestic Servant ◽  
The Law ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Action by domestic servant alleging that she had been trafficked and forced to work by former employers — Certification of diplomatic status of former employers — Whether diplomatic immunity continuing despite subsequent termination of diplomatic status — Whether commercial activity exception applicable to hiring of domestic servant — Whether subsequent attempts at service defective — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction — The law of the United States

The Telephone Problem and the Road to Telephone Regulation in the United States, 1876–1917

1991 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey E. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Policy Outcome ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Road ◽  
Telephone Companies ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Multiple Interest

Between 1876 and 1917, government philosophy toward telephone regulation began moving away from laissez-faire and toward some kind of involvement in economic affairs. However, while some early studies of regulation suggest business hostility to that policy, AT&T actively sought regulation, jogging government and the public in that direction. But this study is not just a restatement of the interest-group-capture theory, as offered by such economists as Stigler or historians as Kolko. Regulation resulted from the convergence of interests of many affected players, including residential and business telephone subscribers, the independent telephone companies that competed with AT&T, and the state and federal governments, as well as AT&T. I employ a multiple interest theory to account for telephone regulation, but unlike other studies using such a framework, I suggest that government is an independent actor with impact on the final policy outcome, and not merely an arena where private interests battle for control over policy outcomes, as is so common among other multiple interest studies of regulation.

scholarly journals Disrupting Regulation, Regulating Disruption: The Politics of Uber in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 919-937 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Berins Collier ◽  
V.B. Dubal ◽  
Christopher L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Economic Sectors ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Labor Issues ◽  
Regulatory Regimes

Platform companies disrupt not only the economic sectors they enter, but also the regulatory regimes that govern those sectors. We examine Uber in the United States as a case of regulating this disruption in different arenas: cities, state legislatures, and judicial venues. We find that the politics of Uber regulation does not conform to existing models of regulation. We describe instead a pattern of “disruptive regulation”, characterized by a challenger-incumbent cleavage, in two steps. First, an existing regulatory regime is not deregulated but successfully disregarded by a new entrant. Second, the politics of subsequently regulating the challenger leads to a dual regulatory regime. In the case of Uber, disruptive regulation takes the form of challenger capture, an elite-driven pattern, in which the challenger has largely prevailed. It is further characterized by the surrogate representation of dispersed actors—customers and drivers—who do not have autonomous power and who rely instead on shifting alignments with the challenger and incumbent. In its surrogate capacity in city and state regulation, Uber has frequently mobilized large numbers of customers and drivers to lobby for policy outcomes that allow it to continue to provide service on terms it finds acceptable. Because drivers have reaped less advantage from these alignments, labor issues have been taken up in judicial venues, again primarily by surrogates (usually plaintiffs’ attorneys) but to date have not been successful.

scholarly journals Proving Chinese Law in the Courts of the United States

Amicus Curiae ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-215
Author(s):  
Richard K Wagner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
English Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Business Culture ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Chinese Business ◽  
The Us

The volume of disputes heard by United States (US) courts containing a China element continues to be robust even against a backdrop of political rhetoric concerning an economic ‘de-coupling’ of the US and China. These cross-border disputes often involve Chinese parties and special issues, some of which concern Chinese business culture, but many of which involve interpreting questions of Chinese law. How is proving Chinese law accomplished in these cases and how have US courts performed in interpreting Chinese law? This article first discusses the approach to proving Chinese law in US courts. While expert testimony is often submitted and can be valuable to a US court, the applicable US rule offers no standards by which these opinions are to be judged. And, in the China context, without specific guidance, it can be challenging for a judge, unaccustomed with China or the Chinese legal system to determine which version of the law to believe. Moreover, under the applicable rule, the US court can simply ignore competing Chinese law opinions and conduct its own Chinese law legal research, presumably using English language sources. This can lead to interesting interpretations of Chinese law to say the least. The article anchors its discussion in an examination of those recent cases which have interpreted Article 277 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. This is the legal provision of Chinese law that can be implicated in certain situations involving cross-border discovery, and there are now numerous Article 277 cases among the reported US decisions. The article analyses Article 277 by placing it within the larger context of Chinese civil procedure and argues that the language used in the provision has a special meaning within Chinese evidence law that has been obscured in those US case decisions interpreting it, leading to erroneous results. The article concludes by offering judges and practitioners some suggestions for interpreting Chinese law in future US cases. Keywords: Chinese law; US courts; Article 277; deposition; cross-border discovery; Hague Evidence Convention; Chinese civil procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document