Settlement of the Claims of Individuals by Their Countries

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-19
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Bettauer

A nation can settle the claims of its citizens against a foreign government. The injury must have been an internationally wrongful act by another State and the injured citizen must have been a national of the espousing state. Generally, a claim may not be espoused unless the “local remedies” rule is satisfied. The United States has a long history of settling individual claims against foreign countries by international agreements. The Supreme Court has upheld this practice. The Peace Treaty with Japan contains a mutual waiver of claims. Yet Americans who had been forced to work as slave laborers for Japanese companies filed lawsuits. The u.s. executive branch and courts held that their claims had been settled. Certain Holocaust claims were resolved under a new format. Thus, creative approaches to resolving claims are available outside the normal legal framework.

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
Tatsiana Hiarnovich

The paper explores the displace of Polish archives from the Soviet Union that was performed in 1920s according to the Riga Peace Treaty of 1921 and other international agreements. The aim of the research is to reconstruct the process of displace, based on the archival sources and literature. The object of the research is those documents that were preserved in the archives of Belarus and together with archives from other republics were displaced to Poland. The exploration leads to clarification of the selection of document fonds to be displaced, the actual process of movement and the explanation of the role that the archivists of Belarus performed in the history of cultural relationships between Poland and the Soviet Union. The articles of the Treaty of Riga had been formulated without taking into account the indivisibility of archive fonds that is one of the most important principles of restitution, which caused the failure of the treaty by the Soviet part.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 741-745 ◽  

On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump's most recent iteration of restrictions on entry to the United States by nationals from certain foreign countries. Following several rewrites of this travel ban, ensuing legal challenges, and lower court injunctions, the Court, in a five-to-four decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, reversed the latest ruling of a lower court that had granted a partial preliminary injunction against the ban. Although acknowledging that there was considerable evidence tying the travel ban to bias against Muslims, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs were nonetheless unlikely to succeed either in their statutory claim that Trump lacked the authority to impose this ban or in their constitutional claim that the ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court accordingly reversed the lower court's injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The ruling, based on the Trump administration's asserted national security interest, leaves in place travel restrictions imposed on nationals of seven countries—Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—only two of which are not Muslim-majority countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document