Doctor Francis Lieber’s Instructions for the Government of Armies in the Field

1907 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
George B. Davis

International law owes much to American judges and to American jurists. The list of those who have contributed to its advancement is not short and includes the names of Marshall, Story and Field, Kent, Wheaton, with his able commentators, Dana and Lawrence, Halleck and Lieber and, among recent writer’s, Taylor, Moore and Snow. Although his name is not connected with a general treatise on the subject of public international law, it may be doubted whether any of his fellow-workers in that field have rendered a more important service to humanity and to international good neighborhood, than has Dr. Francis Lieber in his memorable “Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field.”

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 485-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Collins

It is not generally appreciated that Francis Mann was not an international lawyer at all by training. His thesis at Berlin University was in company law. It was only after he had been in England for some time that he began to write about private international law,1 and his interest in public international law was developed as a result of his friendship with Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. It was not until 1943 that he published anything about public international law, and in that year he published a substantial article in two parts on the relationship between national law and international law, in which he built on the previous work on Judicial Aspects of Foreign Relations by Louis Jaffe2 and on acts of state by Sir William Holdsworth.3 Subsequently he came to make this subject his own, at least in England,4 where the subject has never attracted the attention which it has attracted in the United States.5


1941 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 684-736 ◽  

Claim of the United States for amount of moneys expended in the investigation, preparationand proof of its case denied as they were in the nature of expenses of the presentation of thecase, which, according to the Arbitration Convention, are to be paid by each government;nor are such costs claimable under the heading of damages. When a state espouses a private claim on behalf of one o f its nationals, expenses whichthe latter may have incurred in establishing orprosecuting his claim prior to espousal by thegovernment may, under appropriate conditions,be legitimately included in the claim, but the Tribunal knew of no case in which a government has sought or been allowed indemnity for expenses incurred in preparing the proof or presenting a national or private claim before an international tribunal.In the absence of international cases on the subject, there are certain decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with both air pollution and water pollution which may legitimately be taken as a guide in this field of international law where no contrary rule prevails in international law ana no reason for rejecting such precedents can be induced from the limitation of sovereignty inherent in the Constitution o f the United States.The Tribunal finds that under the principles of international law, as well as the law of the United States, no state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein,'whe the case is of serious consequence and theinjury is established by clear and convincing evidence.The Tribunal therefore holds that the Dominion o f Canada is responsible in international law for the conductofthe Trail Smelter and that it is the duty o f the Government of the Dominion of Canada to see to it that this conduct is in conformity with the obligation of the Dominion under international law as herein determined.No damage has occurred since the previous award o f the Tribunal (this JUURNAL, Vol. 33,1939, p. 182).The Trail Smelter shall be required to refrain in the future from causing any damage through fumes in the State of Washington. To avoid such damage the operations of the Smelter shall be subject to a regime or measure of control as provided in the present decision. Should such damage occur, indemnity to the United States shall be fixed in such manner as the Governments acting under the convention may agree upon.


1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-517
Author(s):  
Marian Nash (Leich)

On March 3,1997, President William J. Clinton transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification as a treaty the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders, signed at Hong Kong on December 20,1996. In his letter of transmittal, President Clinton pointed out that, upon its entry into force, the Agreement would “enhance cooperation between the law enforcement communities of the United States and Hong Kong, and … provide a framework and basic protections for extraditions after the reversion of Hong Kong to the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997.” The President continued: Given the absence of an extradition treaty with the People’s Republic of China, this Treaty would provide the means to continue an extradition relationship with Hong Kong after reversion and avoid a gap in law enforcement. It will thereby make a significant contribution to international law enforcement efforts.The provisions of this Agreement follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. In addition, the Agreement contains several provisions specially designed in light of the particular status of Hong Kong. The Agreement’s basic protections for fugitives are also made expressly applicable to fugitives surrendered by the two parties before the new treaty enters into force.


Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-241
Author(s):  
Janice Cavell ◽  
Jeff Noakes

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.


1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolf Sprudzs

Among the many old and new actors on the international stage of nations the United States is one of the most active and most important. The U.S. is a member of most existing intergovernmental organizations, participates in hundreds upon hundreds of international conferences and meetings every year and, in conducting her bilateral and multilateral relations with the other members of the community of nations, contributes very substantially to the development of contemporary international law. The Government of the United States has a policy of promptly informing the public about developments in its relations with other countries through a number of documentary publication, issued by the Department of State


2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hepp

James Brown Scott played a key role in the growth of public international law in the United States from the 1890s to the 1940s. While little remembered today, he was well-known among his contemporaries as a leading spokesman for a new and important discipline. Scott rose from obscure middle-class origins to occupy a prominent and influential place as an international lawyer who shared his legal expertise with seven presidents and ten secretaries of state. By examining his life we gain insight into the establishment of public international law as a discipline and on the era when lawyersqualawyers began to help shape American foreign policy.


1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 366-375
Author(s):  
Marian Nash (Leich)

On January 28, 1995, representatives of the Government of the United States and of the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam signed at Hanoi the Agreement Concerning the Settlement of Certain Property Claims and the related Agreement Concerning the Transfer of Diplomatic Properties.


1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-710
Author(s):  
Howard S. Levie

In the July 1973 issue of the Journal, there appeared an article with the above title written by Professor Richard Falk, in which he, in effect, advanced the thesis that the release of prisoners of war for repatriation during the course of hostilities in Vietnam to an ad hoc and self-styled “humanitarian organization” (which admittedly consisted solely of individuals who were vocal opponents of the United States participation in those hostilities) either constituted a valid and forward-looking interpretation of the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereinafter referred to as “the 1949 Convention”) or indicated the need for revision of that instrument. The subject appears to be one which calls for an analysis in considerably greater depth than the treatment provided in the article by Professor Falk.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document