United States Comments of the Government of the United States on the Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties Drawn up by the International Law Commission

1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 567-575
2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P. BARNIDGE

This article examines the 2008 Agreement for Co-operation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy [“123 Agreement”] within the context of the International Law Commission's (ILC) work on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law. Attention is paid to three issues in particular, namely how international environmental law has developed to interact with vaguely worded environmental protection provisions, such as those in the 123 Agreement, and the role of experts in this regard, the issue of civil nuclear liability, and the question of what international law might require for environmental impact assessments under the 123 Agreement to pass muster.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 470-470
Author(s):  
Student

After years of inertia there are now almost daily developments on the issue of compensating those injured by medical treatment. Probably the most important recent development has been the support expressed for no fault compensation by eminent lawyers at the annual bar conference . . . Around the world—and particularly in the United States—lawyers have been one of the main forces obstructing the introduction of such schemes. The support expressed for introducing such a no fault scheme by the chairman of the Law Commission and the judge who made the first£lm award in a case of medical negligence must thus greatly increase the pressure on the government to act.


2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson ◽  
Sara Bickler

The International Law Commission held its fifty-fifth session in Geneva from May 5 to June 6, and from July 7 to August 8, 2003, under the chairmanship of Enrique Candioti of Argentina. The Commission elected Roman Kolodkin of the Russian Federation, Constantin Economides of Greece, Teodor Melescanu of Romania, and Michael Matheson of the United States to fill the vacancies resulting from the death of Valery Kuznetsov of the Russian Federation, the election of Bruno Simma of Germany and Peter Tomka of Slovakia to the International Court of Justice, and the resignation of Robert Rosenstock of the United States.


1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright

In an exchange of notes of November 2, 1917, between Secretary of State Lansing and Viscount Ishii, Special Ambassador of Japan, occurs the following paragraph: The Governments of the United States and Japan recognize that territorial propinquity creates special relations between countries, and consequently, the Government of the United States recognizes that Japan has special interests in China, particularly in the part to which her possessions are contiguous.That states are more interested in the immediate neighborhood of their frontiers than in remote parts of the world, and are apt to carry on a disproportionate commerce and intercourse or even to expand in such regions, are facts familiar to all students of history and diplomacy; but that geographical position should create special legal capacities is a doctrine perhaps more unfamiliar and seemingly in conflict with certain traditionally repeated maxims, such as the equality of states. If peculiar geographic relationship gives rise to peculiar legal privileges and responsibilities, an absolute equality of states can not be assumed, although equality before the law or equal protection of the law might still be recognized. The fact is unquestionable that on frequent occasions the geographic position of territory. has been offered and accepted as a justification for exceptional proceedings, admitted, in some cases, to be otherwise contrary to the requirements of international law.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. A56-A56
Author(s):  
Student

After years of inertia there are now almost daily developments on the issue of compensating those injured by medical treatment. Probably the most important recent development has been the support expressed for no fault compensaction by eminent lawyers at the annual bar conference. . . . Around the world—and particularly in the United States—lawyers have been one of the main forces obstructing the introduction of such schemes. The support expressed for introducing such a no fault scheme by the chairman of the Law Commission and the judge who made the first Lim award in a case of medical negligence must thus greatly increase the pressure on the government to act.


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.


1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malgosia Fitzmaurice

The subject-matter of this article are the issues of treaty law as expounded in the Judgment in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case. The following problems are discussed: unilateral suspension and abandonment of obligations deriving from the binding treaty; the principle of fundamental change of circumstances; unilateral termination of a treaty; applicability of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in this case; legal status of so-called ‘provisional solution’; impossibility of performance and material breach of treaty; the application of the principle of ‘approximate application’; and the principle pacta sunt servanda. The issues arc discussed at the background of the Drafts of the International Law Commission.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document