scholarly journals Cracking the American Climate Negotiators’ Hidden Code: United States Law and the Paris Agreement

Climate Law ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 152-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Wirth
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
Internal Politics ◽  
International Diplomacy ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Almost All

The United States’ position in, and conduct of, the negotiations leading to the Paris Agreement, as with almost all international diplomacy leading to reciprocal international undertakings conducted by that country, reflected not only internal politics, but also the constraints of domestic law. The United States is not unique in this respect, but it is unusual in the extent to and manner in which its municipal law constrains the creation of international commitments. This article disaggregates us international and domestic climate policy as it developed prior to the Paris negotiations and analyses how those dynamics played out on the multilateral stage, influencing the shape of the Paris Outcome, even to the name of the instrument. Among the subjects analysed are (1) the extent of the Executive’s powers in foreign relations on climate and related issues; (2) the strengths and limitations of existing federal legislation as domestic legal authority for an international agreement on limiting emissions of climate-disrupting gases; (3) domestic implementation of the us indc; (4) executive agreements as vehicles for undertaking internationally legally binding commitments on climate; and (5) the role of the courts.1

International Agreements and U.S. Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 155-171
Author(s):  
Jean Galbraith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
Administrative Reforms ◽  
Administrative Efficiency ◽  
International Commitments

Over its constitutional history, the United States has developed multiple ways of joining, implementing, and terminating treaties and other international commitments. This chapter provides an overview of the law governing these pathways and considers the extent to which comparative law has influenced them or could do so in the future. Focusing in particular on the making of international commitments, the chapter describes how, over time, the United States came to develop alternatives to the process set out in the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause, which requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. These alternatives arose partly from reasons of administrative efficiency and partly from presidential interest in making important international commitments in situations where two-thirds of the Senate would be unobtainable. These alternatives have had the effect of considerably increasing the president’s constitutional power to make international commitments. Nonetheless, considerable constraints remain on presidential power in this context, with some of these constraints stemming from constitutional law and others from statutory, administrative, and international law. With respect to comparative law, the chapter observes that U.S. practice historically has been largely but not entirely self-contained. Looking ahead, comparative practice is unlikely to affect U.S. constitutional law with respect to international agreements, but it might hold insights for legislative or administrative reforms.

scholarly journals Economic Sanctions and North Korea

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Carbaugh ◽  
Koushik Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economics Students ◽  
International Diplomacy ◽  
Undergraduate Economics ◽  
Bargaining Table ◽  
Jel Classifications

The United States has enacted economic sanctions against North Korea since the early 1950s when North Korea attacked South Korea. Can North Korea be pressured into giving up its nuclear weapons? This article discusses the role of economic sanctions as a tool of international diplomacy with North Korea. Using concepts and tools taught in undergraduate economics classes, the article discusses the operation of sanctions and then it applies this analysis to the case of North Korea. The article examines the success that sanctions have achieved in bringing Kim Jong Un to the bargaining table and the difficulties that sanctions encounter in promoting a lasting resolution of the conflict between North Korea and the United States. The article is written for a broad audience of economics students. JEL Classifications: F0, F1

Indigenous Nations and US Foreign Relations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Parmenter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weight Of Evidence ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
Indigenous Nations ◽  
History Of ◽  
American Foreign Relations ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship

The United States has engaged with Indigenous nations on a government-to-government basis via federal treaties representing substantial international commitments since the origins of the republic. The first treaties sent to the Senate for ratification under the Constitution of 1789 were treaties with Indigenous nations. Treaties with Indigenous nations provided the means by which approximately one billion acres of land entered the national domain of the United States prior to 1900, at an average price of seventy-five cents per acre – the United States confiscated or claimed another billion acres of Indigenous land without compensation. Despite subsequent efforts of American federal authorities to alter these arrangements, the weight of evidence indicates that the relationship remains primarily one of a nation-to-nation association. Integration of the history of federal relations with Indigenous nations with American foreign relations history sheds important new light on the fundamental linkages between these seemingly distinct state practices from the beginnings of the American republic.

Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent

2001 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 89-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina A. Byrne
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
European Court ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Regulatory Measure

SummaryThis article examines whether the characterization of a regulatory measure as expropriatory depends upon the objective intent of the state in enacting that measure. The issue of regulatory expropriation is of particular importance, given the fact that a number of recent multilateral investment treaties, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, grant investors a right of direct action against a foreign state for losses arising out of measures that are “tantamount” to expropriation.This article will first consider the respective approaches of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the United States to regulatory expropriation. These approaches will be then briefly contrasted with the unique jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Next, the role of intent in municipal law as a means of categorization will be addressed and a case made as to why this approach is equally viable on the international plane. In conclusion, reasons will be given as to why a test based on intent is to be preferred over other theories.

Application of Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution in international context—fear of foreign prosecution as ground for invoking privilege against self-incrimination—relevance of growing international law enforcement cooperation—role of U.S. judiciary in foreign relations

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-764
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Diane Marie Amann
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Context ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Domestic Law

United States v. Balsys. 118 S.Ct. 2218.U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1998.Resolving a long-open question, the U.S. Supreme Court held in this 7-2 decision that a witness in a domestic proceeding may not invoke the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination if the witness fears that the testimony may be used in a prosecution outside the United States. Although grounded in domestic law, the three opinions in Balsys reveal tension between the judiciary's traditional deference to the political branches in foreign relations matters and its concern over the risk that individuals subject to prosecution abroad will suffer deprivation of liberty because of that deference.

scholarly journals What is Foreign Relations Law?

2019 ◽  
pp. 2-20
Author(s):  
Curtis A. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Distinct Field

This chapter considers what is potentially encompassed by the term “foreign relations law,” and what it means to think about it as a distinct field of law that can be compared and contrasted across national jurisdictions. The term “foreign relations law” encompasses the domestic law of each nation that governs how that nation interacts with the rest of the world. Many issues of foreign relations law concern allocations of authority between political actors, such as the authority to represent the nation in diplomacy, to conclude and terminate international agreements, to recognize foreign governments and their territories, and to initiate or end the use of military force. But foreign relations law also encompasses issues relating to the role of the courts in transnational cases, such as whether certain issues are “nonjusticiable” and thus subject entirely to political branch determination, whether courts should take into account considerations of international comity when interpreting and applying domestic law, and whether and to what extent courts can apply international law directly to decide a particular case. The chapter describes the historical development of foreign relations law as a field of study within the United States and considers why it has not been treated as a field in many other countries. The chapter concludes by highlighting a central question for foreign relations law, which is the extent to which it should be treated differently than other types of domestic law—referred to in the United States as a debate over “foreign affairs exceptionalism.”

The Restatement and Beyond

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Foreign Government ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
The Law

This book, The Restatement and Beyond, grapples with the most significant issues in contemporary U.S. foreign relations law. The chapters in this text respond to the recently published Fourth Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law. They review the context and assumptions on which that work relied, criticize that work for its analysis and conclusions, and explore topics left out of the published work that need research and development. Collectively, the essays in this book provide an authoritative study of the issues generating controversy today as those most likely to emerge in the coming decade. The book is organized in six parts. The first part provides a historical context for the law of foreign relations from the beginning of the twentieth century, when the United States first envisioned itself as a peer and competitor of the major European powers, to the present, when the United States, although a hegemon, faces deep unrest and uncertainty with respect to its position in the world. The next four parts look at contested issues in foreign relations law today, specifically the law of treaties, the role of domestic courts in interpreting and applying international law, the limits on domestic jurisdiction, and the law of immunity as to states, international organizations, and foreign government officials. The last part considers what this body of law might look like in the future as well as the difficulties raised by using the Restatement process as a way of contributing to the law’s development.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Sarah H Cleveland ◽  
Paul B. Stephan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Third ◽  
History Of

This introductory chapter serves as a foreword for the volume. It sketches the history of past restatements and the evolution of the latest one. The first (confusingly called Second) Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States brought widespread attention to the term “foreign relations law.” It staunchly defended the proposition that foreign relations, no matter how imbued with discretion and prerogative, still must rest on law. The Third Restatement, prepared during a period of what to many seemed constitutional retrenchment and a loosening of judicial supervision over public life, offered a robust defense of the proposition that, “In conducting the foreign relations of the United States, Presidents, members of Congress, and public officials are not at large in a political process; they are under law.” Moreover, it insisted that the judiciary, as much as the executive and Congress, creates and enforces this law. To the extent that the Third Restatement rested its claims on its view of the state of customary international law, other influential actors pushed back. The Fourth Restatement revisits the Third’s claims, especially about the central role of the judiciary, in light of the evolution of both U.S. and international law and practice.

scholarly journals An analysis of Challenges of Paris Agreement on Climate Change after United States' Withdrawal: Emerging Role of EU, China and India

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Pradeep S. Chauhan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Strategic Partnerships ◽  
China And India ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government

The United States played a key role in clinching the Paris Agreement and in expediting the satisfaction process to facilitate the execution of the agreement as early as possible. The current political dispensation is not inclined to meet its previous commitment to reduce its CO2 emissions by 26 to 28 percent in 2005. The decision to withdraw of the US government has impelled decision makers around the world to reiterate their commitment to implement the Paris agreement. The European Union (EU) will have to assume a pro-active role in the long process of implementing the promises made in Paris. In view of the unwillingness of the United States to abide by its commitment the EU needs to fortify its strategic partnerships with other major emitters such as China and India. The objective of this paper is also to discuss that how the key players will cope with the emerging situations.

Public Report of the Advisory Committee on “Foreign Relations,” 1961

1962 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 518-523
Author(s):  
Leland M. Goodrich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
State Department ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Report ◽  
The Fantastic ◽  
Post War

At its fourth meeting in November, 1960, the Committee had recognized that Foreign Relations was “faced with a crisis of major proportions.” Taking note of “the fantastic expansion of materials in the archives of the State Department during the war and post-war years, an expansion which reflects the enlarged role of the United States in world affairs,”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document