Statement by Expert Panel: U.S. Policy on the Settlement of Disputes in the Law of the Sea

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 438-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Deep Seabed Mining ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Seabed Mining

In 1983, President Reagan announced the policy of the United States to accept the normative provisions of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea as reflecting the customary international law of the sea (in matters other than deep seabed mining).

Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention and Third States: Some General Observations

1989 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Vasciannie
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regulatory Control ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Exploration And Exploitation ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Deep Seabed Mining ◽  
Seabed Mining ◽  
Near Future

On 30 April 1982, after almost a decade of careful negotiations at the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, the Law of the Sea Convention was adopted by the positive votes of 130 States. In one of its main sections, Part XI, the Convention sets out a detailed regime for the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed and its resources and firmly places deep seabed mining under the regulatory control of the International Seabed Authority, to be established in Jamaica. However, as is well known, the United States and certain other Western countries have adopted a negative posture towards various aspects of Part XI and, for this reason, they are unlikely to ratify the 1982 Convention in the near future. Against this background, the question whether the provisions in Part XI may be binding evenvis-à-visnon-parties to the LOSC has assumed considerable importance in contemporary international law.

Suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty prior to its withdrawal: the content of custom

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-164
Author(s):  
Kazuki Hagiwara
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Intermediate Range ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Law

The United States suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) ‘in accordance with customary international law’. However, State practice prior to the International Law Commission's codification of the law of treaties did not contribute to clarifying the extent of a right to suspend and the proper conditions for its exercise under customary international law. The few instances regarding suspension due to a serious breach did not demonstrate how the treaties in question were suspended but were a mere reference to a right of suspension in diplomatic or political documents. Against that backdrop, this article seeks to delineate what customary rules the United States believed it was observing and to clarify to what extent those rules are identical to or different from the codified rules on suspension in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Convention). Because the codified procedural safeguards or the mechanism of acquiescence under Article 65 of the Convention were considered as the progressive development of international law, it appears possible to suspend the INF Treaty unilaterally outside the Convention and under the customary rules by which the United States is bound. The INF Treaty was suspended by the United States and by Russia in sequence. That Russian suspension appears to have been an exceptio non adimpleti contractus to prevent the asymmetric execution of the INF Treaty that had been previously suspended by the United States.

Jurisdiction, State Immunity, and Judgments in the Restatement (Fourth) of US Foreign Relations Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-135
Author(s):  
William S Dodge
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Frequency ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In 2018, the American Law Institute published the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law, which restates the law of the United States governing jurisdiction, state immunity, and judgments. These issues arise with great frequency in international cases brought in US courts, including cases involving Chinese parties. This article provides an overview of many of the key provisions of the Restatement (Fourth). The article describes the Restatement (Fourth)’s treatment of the customary international law of jurisdiction, as well the rules of US domestic law based on international comity that US courts apply when deciding international cases.

Exchange Between Expert Panel and Reagan Administration Officials on Non-Seabed-Mining Provisions of LOS Treaty

1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred C. Iklé
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Full Participation ◽  
Major Interest ◽  
The World ◽  
Seabed Mining

After fifteen years of intensive effort, the nations of the world, with full participation by the United States, produced a comprehensive Convention on the Law of the Sea. In 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States would not become a party to the Convention. But formal abstention from the Convention is hardly a complete national oceans policy for the United States. Indeed, that abstention compels the United States to attend carefully to its posture, in law and policy, toward the Convention itself and to each of its many provisions on matters of major interest to the United States.

Arigo and Others v. Swift and Others

2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 295-373
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Restricted Area ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

295State immunity — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Articles 30, 31 and 32 — Rules applicable to warships — Non-compliance by warships with laws and regulations of coastal State — United States vessel entering restricted area of Philippine waters — Responsibility of flag State for damage caused by warship — Immunities of warships — Philippines–United States of America Visiting Forces Agreement, 1998 — Whether any waiver of immunity — Role of executiveSea — Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Convention not ratified by United States — Customary international law — Coastal State rights — Marine environment — Whether relevant provisions of treaty codifying customary international law — Whether United States responsible for environmental damage — Whether United States immune from suitJurisdiction — United States vessel entering restricted area of Philippine waters — Whether act jure imperii — Environmental damage — Whether United States having immunity — Whether Philippines barred from exercising jurisdiction over United States respondents — Article XVI of Philippines Constitution, 1987Environment — Marine environment — Right to a healthful ecology — Intergenerational responsibility — Writ of Kalikasan — The law of the Philippines

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document