Russian-American Relations, 1917–1933: An Interpretation

1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malbone W. Graham
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
New Era ◽  
States Government ◽  
American Diplomacy ◽  
The Government

The assumption by the government of the United States of diplomatic relations with the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on November 16, 1933, closed a long and unique chapter in the annals of American diplomacy. Now that this phase has become historic and a new era in Soviet-American relations has been officially inaugurated, it is possible to review and appraise the highly contentious and illucid interval between 1917 and 1933 with some degree of accuracy and finality. The purpose of this discussion is, therefore, to examine the whole period candidly, objectively, dispassionately, by means of an analysis of the attitude of the United States government, as officially expressed in diplomatic documents or the utterances of responsible statesmen in the period since tsardom fell in Russia. It is desirable, however, to relate those statements, and the positions taken, to the historic attitudes of both Russia and the United States in the course of the last one hundred years; for it is only as the policy of the United States is seen in its full historic setting, in relation to the principles of international law long espoused and followed in American diplomatic practice, that the more recent phases of that policy can adequately be judged.

Security Council

1961 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-279 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Key West ◽  
American States ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Government ◽  
Ultimate Objective

From its 921st through its 923d meetings the Security Council considered the complaint of the government of Cuba that the United States was planning direct military intervention in Cuba.Mr. Wadsworth, the representative of the United States and the first speaker, deplored the fact that because of continued provocation over nearly a two-year period the United States had been forced to break diplomatic relations with Cuba, and denied as false propaganda the Cuban charges that the United States was contemplating a military attack on Cuba. Mr. Roa, the Cuban representative, stated in his opening remarks that Cuba considered the Security Council the proper organ before which to bring its case, and that his country opposed any effort to transfer the examination of its claim to the Council of the Organization of American States. He charged, inter alia: 1) that United States materials had been air-lifted to counter-revolutionary groups in the Cuban mountains; 2) that United States Embassy officials had been engaged in espionage and in conspiracy with counterrevolutionary elements; 3) that false and harmful propaganda against Cuba was being broadcast from the United States, with the support of the United States government; 4) that mercenaries were being trained at Guantanamo Naval Base, with a view to launching a number of small military expeditions against different points of the island; and 5) that destroyers had been placed on the alert in Key West, ninety miles from Cuba. The ultimate objective of these movements, Mr. Roa added, was a military invasion of his country.

Security Council

1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-230
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
States Government

The Security Council discussed this question at its 1022nd–1025th meetings, on October 23–25, 1962. It had before it a letter dated October 22, 1962, from the permanent representative of the United States, in which it was stated that the establishment of missile bases in Cuba constituted a grave threat to the peace and security of the world; a letter of the same date from the permanent representative of Cuba, claiming that the United States naval blockade of Cuba constituted an act of war; and a letter also dated October 22 from the deputy permanent representative of the Soviet Union, emphasizing that Soviet assistance to Cuba was exclusively designed to improve Cuba's defensive capacity and that the United States government had committed a provocative act and an unprecedented violation of international law in its blockade.

Herbert Hoover's “Treaty” with Soviet Russia: August 20, 1921

Slavic Review ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 276-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin M. Weissman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Summer ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Private Agency ◽  
Medical Supplies ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Government ◽  
Soviet Russia

In March 1921 Lenin predicted, “If there is a harvest, everybody will hunger a little and the government will be saved. Otherwise, since we cannot take anything from people who do not have the means to satisfy their own hunger, the government will perish.“ By early summer, Russia was in the grip of one of the worst famines in its history. Lenin's gloomy forecast, however, was never put to the test. At almost the last moment, substantial help in the form of food, clothing, and medical supplies arrived from a most unexpected source —U.S. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover.Hoover undertook the relief of Soviet Russia not as an official representative of the United States government but as the head of a private agency —the American Relief Administration (A.R.A.).

The use and impact of metadata in civil cases

First Monday ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Russo ◽  
Abebe Rorissa
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
New Era ◽  
Everyday Activities ◽  
States Government ◽  
Civil Cases

This article is one of the first to explore and delve into the legal system, with a focus on the burgeoning use of metadata in civil cases. Although metadata is embedded in all kinds of digital files including text, audio, and image files, as well as many social media and game applications, few understand how both the visible and embedded information is being “mined” (collected) for a myriad of uses by organizations, such as, Google or even the United States government. Consequently, in this paper, we explore the implications of metadata use in civil cases and how it could bring a new era of evidence in litigation, which has huge ramifications for how the average citizen may begin to view their privacy in the course of everyday activities.

Introduction

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold G. Maier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
States Government

The ultimate authority of the International Court of Justice flows from the same source as the ultimate authority of all other judicial bodies. Every court’s decisions are an authoritative source of law in a realistic sense only because they are accepted as such by the community whose controversies the court is charged to resolve. In the case of the World Court, it is the community of nations that confers that authority and under the Court’s Statute, its jurisdiction is conferred solely by the consent of the nations whose disputes it is called to adjudicate. It is for this reason that the case Nicaragua v. United States and the actions of both the Court and the United States Government in connection with it are of special importance to those who are concerned with international law.

Legal Issues in the Nicaragua Opinion

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-166
Author(s):  
Fred L. Morrison
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
United States Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Subject

The opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case will be of interest primarily because of its general pronouncements on questions of international law. Its impact on the immediate controversy appears slight; the United States Government has strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy, has vetoed subsequent proposed Security Council resolutions on the subject, and is appropriating additional funds for the contested activities, without apparent reference to the Court’s decision. This Comment is limited to the general theoretical and legal issues and will not treat the underlying factual issues, the Court’s disposition of the immediate case or the implications of the opinion for the evolution of the dispute.

American E-Government Service Sectors and Applications

2011 ◽  
pp. 49-55
Author(s):  
D. Evans
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Electronic Government ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Government Service ◽  
States Government ◽  
Service Sectors ◽  
The Government

Citizens routinely use technology to increase the efficiency of their transactions in every area of their lives. It is, therefore, logical that citizens expect technology to be used to improve the efficiency of their transactions with their government. In response, the United States government has developed electronic interfaces combined with the Internet called electronic government or e-government. E-government is the communication between the government and its citizens, businesses or itself by the use of computers and a Web-enabled presence.

The Office of the Legal Adviser: The State Department Lawyer and Foreign Affairs

1962 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 633-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Bilder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Major Influence ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Legal Adviser ◽  
States Government

As “house counsel” to the Department of State, the Office of the Legal Adviser exerts a major influence on the views and policies of the United States Government concerning matters of international law.

scholarly journals The Development of United States Government Policy Toward Indian Health Care, 1850-1900

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Massing
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Indian Health ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Government

By 1850 the United States government already had a half century's experience providing health services to its Indian population. During the first halfof the nineteenth century, however, these services were focused primarily on containing epidemic diseases, especially smallpox. By mid-century, the rise of intemperance and venereal diseases among Indians convinced the government that more control over Indians' health was necessary. Professionally trained physicians, bolstered by advances in medical knowledge, led this interventionist effort at improving Indian health care. Government health care providers increasingly came to believe that success depended on undermining traditional lifestyles and leadership.

Genocide in Vietnam?

Worldview ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
Hugo Adam Bedau
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bertrand Russell ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The People ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Government ◽  
International War ◽  
Final Question ◽  
Indochina War

In 1965, shortly after the United States Government had ordered regular bombing raids over Vietnam, Bertrand Russell and his Peace Foundation organized a nongovernmental “International War Crimes Tribunal.” Its aim was to determine whether the U.S. Government was committing crimes in violation of international law in its conduct of the Indochina war. Hearings began in November, 1966, in Sweden. A year later, Secretary McNamara was ordering preparation of what is now known as the Pentagon Papers, and four months after that was the massacre at Mylai. The final question put before the Tribunal was: “Do the combination of crimes imputed to the Government of the United States in its war in Vietnam constitute the crime of genocide?” The Tribunal voted unanimously that “the United States Government [is] guilty of genocide against the people in Vietnam.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document