scholarly journals The Philippines’ Foreign Policy Direction: An Assessment of The First Year of President Duterte

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-173
Author(s):  
Henelito A. Sevilla, Jr.
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
First Year ◽  
International Media ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Policy Direction ◽  
One Year

President Duterte’s election as the 16th president of the Republic of the Philippines has put the country into the international media limelight. President Duterte’s use of unconventional language in his public speeches, his infamous drug campaign and his being the second head of the state after President Marcos who tried to infuse the idea of an “independent foreign policy” in the conduct of the country’s foreign relations are just some of the reasons for such media attention. Under Duterte’s administration, the Philippines opened up and became friendly with China despite the latter’s “aggressive militarization” in the South China Sea. Along with China, Duterte has also opened a new vista of military cooperation with Russia. This article examines one-year of President Duterte’s foreign policy – vis-à-vis the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China, and its traditional ally, the United States. It aims to discuss the direction of Duterte’s Foreign Policy in his first year of presidency and its possible implications for the Philippines’ relations with ASEAN, and the United States.

Indigenous Nations and US Foreign Relations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Parmenter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weight Of Evidence ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
Indigenous Nations ◽  
History Of ◽  
American Foreign Relations ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship

The United States has engaged with Indigenous nations on a government-to-government basis via federal treaties representing substantial international commitments since the origins of the republic. The first treaties sent to the Senate for ratification under the Constitution of 1789 were treaties with Indigenous nations. Treaties with Indigenous nations provided the means by which approximately one billion acres of land entered the national domain of the United States prior to 1900, at an average price of seventy-five cents per acre – the United States confiscated or claimed another billion acres of Indigenous land without compensation. Despite subsequent efforts of American federal authorities to alter these arrangements, the weight of evidence indicates that the relationship remains primarily one of a nation-to-nation association. Integration of the history of federal relations with Indigenous nations with American foreign relations history sheds important new light on the fundamental linkages between these seemingly distinct state practices from the beginnings of the American republic.

LGBTQ Issues and US Foreign Relations

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phil Tiemeyer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Sexual Behaviors ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Late 19Th Century ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Impact

The impact of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) issues on U.S. foreign relations is an understudied area, and only a handful of historians have addressed these issues in articles and books. Encounters with unexpected and condemnable (to European eyes) sexual behaviors and gender comportment arose from the first European forays into North America. As such, subduing heterodox sexual and gender expression has always been part of the colonizing endeavor in the so-called New World, tied in with the mission of civilizing and Christianizing the indigenous peoples that was so central to the forging of the United States and pressing its territorial expansion across the continent. These same impulses accompanied the further U.S. accumulation of territory across the Pacific and the Caribbean in the late 19th century, and they persisted even longer and further afield in its citizens’ missionary endeavors across the globe. During the 20th century, as the state’s foreign policy apparatus grew in size and scope, so too did the notions of homosexuality and transgender identity solidify as widely recognizable identity categories in the United States. Thus, it is during the 20th and 21st centuries, with ever greater intensity as the decades progressed, that one finds important influences of homosexuality and gender diversity on U.S. foreign policy: in immigration policies dating back to the late 19th century, in the Lavender Scare that plagued the State Department during the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies, in more contemporary battles between religious conservatives and queer rights activists that have at times been exported to other countries, and in the increasing intersections of LGBTQ rights issues and the War on Terror that has been waged primarily in the Middle East since September 11, 2001.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-279
Author(s):  
Marian Nash ◽  
(Leich)
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
International Bank ◽  
Legal Adviser ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Contemporary Practice

In response to a request from the court to the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, by a letter dated November 29, 1995, the United States submitted a Statement of Interest in Meridien International Bank Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Liberia. The United States stated that the executive branch had determined that allowing the (second) Liberian National Transitional Government (LNTG II) access to American courts was consistent with U.S. foreign policy. The court, the United States maintained, should therefore accord that Government standing to assert claims and defenses in the action on behalf of the Republic of Liberia.

scholarly journals Bosnia and Herzegovina on the uncertain path towards the membership in NATO

2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-360
Author(s):  
Dragan Djukanovic
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Policy Document ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
The Republic

The path of Bosnia and Herzegovina towards NATO membership began after its entry into the Partnership for Peace in November 2006. In just a few years, Bosnia and Herzegovina has achieved an intensive dialogue with NATO (2008) and the launch of negotiations on the Membership Action Plan (2010), which was however activated in December 2018. In the meantime, there have come to a discord between the key internal political factors in Bosnia and Herzegovina and particularly clear distinction between the Bosniak and Croat elites that unequivocally support NATO membership, and representatives of Serbs at the state level and the Republic of Srpska who are currently against it. Moreover, in October 2017, the National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska took a stand by which it proclaimed the military neutrality of this entity and in that regard insisted on consultations with the neighboring state - the Republic of Serbia. However, in March 2018, the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted a five-year strategic foreign policy document which stipulates that NATO membership is one of its foreign policy foundations. This document only added to the confusion regarding BiH?s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Following the general elections held in October 2018, this issue has now posed a specific problem over the formation of the Council of Ministers. Neighbors of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro have different opinions concerning the possibility of membership of this country in NATO. Accordingly, Croatia declaratively expresses support and emphasizes its interest in integrating BiH into NATO to prevent cross-border security challenges. Serbian officials are quite restrained about BiH?s entry into NATO, saying that this should be the result of the compromise of the elites of the three constituent nations. The global race between the United States and the Russian Federation represents a turning point in terms of BiH?s membership in NATO. The United States strongly supports this process, believing that it will secure the post-conflict Western Balkans project, while Russia retains the explicit position that any new enlargement poses a problem for its security.

scholarly journals POPULISME DAN KEBIJAKAN LUAR NEGERI DI INDONESIA

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Imelda Masni Juniaty Sianipar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Order ◽  
The West ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Hugo Chavez

On October 20, 2014, Joko Widodo or familiarly known as Jokowi was sworn in as the Seventh President of the Republic of Indonesia. The majority of Indonesian society supports Jokowi because He is simple, honest and populist. The presence of populist leaders in international politics often attracts the attention of Western countries, particularly the United States. Populist leaders are often considered as the authoritarian leaders, anti-democratic, anti-Western, anti-foreign and anti-market. Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Iran are the examples. Chavez and Ahmadinejad are considered as threats by the United States because they challenge the United States led regional and global order. This article will examine the direction of Jokowi’s foreign policy. This article argues that Jokowi is a moderate populist leader. Jokowi is friendly to other countries including the West but still prioritize the national interests. Thus, Indonesia under Jokowi is not a threat to other countries and the West. In fact, they can work together to achieve their common national interests. Keywords: populism, foreign policy, Indonesia, jokowi, moderate populism

scholarly journals Condition and the ways of development of the USA and the Republic of Korea alliance at the present stage

2021 ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Michael Motyavin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Present Stage ◽  
Current State ◽  
Joint Policy ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Republic

This article examines the current state and ways of development of the alliance of the United States of America and the Republic of Korea after the Joseph Biden administration came to power. During the summit held in Washington on May 21, 2021, the key positions of the two countries on the formation of a joint policy in the future were announced. There were areas and regions that had not previously appeared on the joint foreign policy agenda, which means fundamental changes in the understanding of the alliance’s future. Consequently, the author of the article analyzes the reasons why the Moon Jae-in administration could change its course in foreign policy, Washington's goals for reforming the alliance and the changes that the alliance of the United States and South Korea will undergo.

Harry S. Truman and US Foreign Relations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaete O'Connell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
Us Foreign Relations ◽  
American Foreign Relations

Sworn in as the 33rd President of the United States following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, Harry S. Truman faced the daunting tasks of winning the war and ensuring future peace and stability. Chided by critics for his lack of foreign policy experience but championed by supporters for his straightforward decision-making, Truman guided the United States from World War to Cold War. The Truman presidency marked a new era in American foreign relations, with the United States emerging from World War II unmatched in economic strength and military power. The country assumed a leadership position in a postwar world primarily shaped by growing antagonism with the Soviet Union. Truman pursued an interventionist foreign policy that took measures to contain Soviet influence in Europe and stem the spread of communism in Asia. Under his leadership, the United States witnessed the dawn of the atomic age, approved billions of dollars in economic aid to rebuild Europe, supported the creation of multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization, recognized the state of Israel, and intervened in the Korean peninsula. The challenges Truman confronted and the policies he implemented laid the foundation for 20th-century US foreign relations throughout the Cold War and beyond.

Customary International Law and U.S. Judicial Power

2020 ◽  
pp. 251-264
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Third

This chapter describes specific points of divergence between the Third and Fourth Restatements of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States regarding how U.S. courts should engage with customary international law. The Third Restatement, adopted in 1987, envisioned U.S. courts fluent in and engaged with international law, deploying a U.S. foreign relations jurisprudence in dialogue with international law and lawyers. Customary international law was a central feature of this vision because it was the prime pathway for human rights litigation in federal courts when U.S. treaty-based human-rights initiatives had stalled. Appearing thirty years later, the Fourth Restatement exhibits a fundamentally different orientation toward customary international law. Customary international law is no longer embraced as it was in the Third Restatement as an opportunity to play offense, to advance the international law of human rights. That vision inspired a reaction among some U.S. legal scholars who questioned the U.S. federal law status of customary international law and the legitimacy of U.S. judges advancing the customary international law of human rights. The Fourth Restatement seeks a middle ground by defending against this revision of customary international law’s status role in the United States, concerned that the revisionist view might encourage and provide cover for U.S. courts to dismiss cases and claims with foreign policy ramifications that they should be adjudicating. The approaches of the two Restatements, taken together, have contributed to the disengagement of U.S. judges from customary international law altogether, to the detriment of U.S. conduct of foreign policy and contrary to the original constitutional specification of the judicial power of the United States as reflected in Article III, the Judiciary Act of 1789 that established the federal courts, and early historical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document