Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Gaj Trifković
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
17Th Century ◽  
Revolutionary War ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Continental Army ◽  
The People ◽  
The Cost

Prisoner exchange is as old as warfare itself. Along with ransom, it was one of the few hopes for prisoners of war until the advent of modern international law. By the beginning of the 17th century, prisoner exchange had become a recognized institute of rules and customs of war, with European states agreeing on exchange arrangements (so-called “cartels”) whenever they fought. The prime motive behind the exchange was the need to get one’s own trained soldiers back as soon as possible, but also to minimize the cost of keeping enemy prisoners. Only full-fledged “civilized” nations could form a cartel; native tribes and rebels were not seen as subjects of law. It is therefore not surprising that the British did their utmost to avoid entering a general cartel during the Revolutionary War (1775–83), for by doing so they would recognize the legitimacy of the nascent United States and their Continental Army. Approximately ninety years later, the Federal government in Washington faced the same problem and kept refusing an all-encompassing cartel with the Southern “rebels” for over a year after the beginning of hostilities in April of 1861. The deal was eventually reached in July of 1862 and would be in place until May of 1863. Although the official text read that the Union representatives signed the agreement with the people who had been “commissioned by the authorities they respectively represent,” the signing was a ...

The Need to Restrain the Treaty–Making Power of the United States within Constitutional Limits

1954 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Finch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The People ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
International Body ◽  
Domestic Law

“The treaty-making power is an extraordinary power liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”

Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd: Implications of the Supreme Court's Decision for the People Who Matter Most … the Consumer

2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Jaquette
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
The People ◽  
Development Costs ◽  
Generic Pharmaceuticals ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Patient Use

Sales of brand and generic pharmaceuticals in the United States reached $274.7 billion in 2006. Consumers in this country, including the federal government, are paying tremendous amounts of money for drugs and the cost continues to be a growing concern for all parties involved. Part of this increased cost encountered by consumers can be directly attributed to the ever-increasing costs manufacturers must cope with in the development of new drugs. Economists estimate that it takes twelve to fifteen years to develop a single new drug and have it approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The average cost: $800 million. For every 10,000 compounds investigated, only five are ever tested as potential medicines in clinical trials and only one is ever approved for patient use. Of all the drugs approved by the FDA, only three out of ten generate revenues that meet or exceed average research and development costs.

A View from Inside: Understanding Puerto Rico Cockfighting

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Úrsula A. Aragunde-Kohl ◽  
Yahaira Segarra-González ◽  
Liza M. Meléndez-Samó ◽  
Ivemarie Hernández-Rivera ◽  
Carolina Quiles-Peña
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Puerto Rico ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
The Third ◽  
The People

Abstract The purpose of this research was to better understand the beliefs and practices that the residents of Puerto Rico have regarding cockfighting, including their perception of the recently passed prohibition against nonhuman animal fighting on the island. It had an exploratory descriptive design consisting of three phases, where the qualitative data obtained from phase one would guide the process of identifying variables that could be measured. In the second phase, an instrument was developed, and in the third, it was administered. Most of the participants agreed with the prohibition of cockfighting in Puerto Rico and that it was necessary. The data showed that there is a disconnect between what the federal government of the United States legislated, what the local government and agencies that were supposed to enforce the prohibition did with the legislation, and what the people directly affected by the legislation received for education and guidance.

How the Great Lakes Became "High Seas," and their Status Viewed from the Standpoint of International Law

1910 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-313
Author(s):  
Harry E. Hunt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Lakes ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Great Increase ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
High Seas

The convention which met in 1787 to frame the Constitution of the United States, embraced two earnest and determined bodies of men. One favored a strong central government; the other opposed any great increase of power over that granted by the Articles of Confederation. With what jealousy the states guarded their rights and with what reluctance they made surrenders to the federal government is common knowledge. The Constitution, as adopted, was a compromise between the factions, and that part relative to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction was the second great compromise between conflicting depositories of power.

International Law Aspects of Repatriation of Prisoners of War During Hostilities: A Reply

1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-710
Author(s):  
Howard S. Levie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Humanitarian Organization ◽  
Forward Looking

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.

Towards a Theory of Taxation

1984 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-173
Author(s):  
J. R. Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The Cost ◽  
George Iii

“Towards a Theory of Taxation” is a proper theme for an Englishman to take when giving a paper in America. After all it was from the absence of such a theory that the United States derived its existence. The Colonists felt strongly that there should be no taxation without representation, and George III was unable to explain to them convincingly why they should contribute to the cost of their defense. Since that time, understanding has not advanced much. In Britain we still maintain the fiction that taxes are a voluntary gift to the Crown, and taxing statutes are given the Royal Assent with the special formula, “La Reine remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult” instead of the simple “La Reine le veult,” and in the United States taxes have regularly been levied on residents of the District of Columbia who until recently had no representation in Congress, and by the State of New York on those who worked but did not reside in the State, and so did not have a vote. Taxes are regularly levied, in America as elsewhere, on those who have no say on whether they should be levied or how they should be spent. I am taxed by the Federal Government on my American earnings and by state governments on my American spending, but I should be hard put to it to make out that it was unjust. Florida is wondering whether to follow California in taxing multinational corporations on their world-wide earnings.

Lawless Wars of Empire? The International Law of War in the Philippines, 1898–1903

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Smiley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Army ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Military Officers ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of

Writing for his fellow military officers in early 1903, United States Army Major C.J. Crane reflected on the recent Philippine–American War. The bloody struggle to suppress an insurgency in the Philippines after the United States had annexed them from Spain in 1899 had officially concluded the previous July. The war had been accompanied by fierce racist sentiments among Americans, and in keeping with these, Crane described his foes as “the most treacherous people in the world.” But Crane's discussion drew as much on concepts of law as it did on race. The average American officer, Crane argued, had “remembered all the time that he was struggling with an enemy who was not entitled to the privileges usually granted prisoners of war,” and could be summarily executed, without benefit of “court-martial or other regular tribunal.” If anything, the Americans had been too generous. “Many [American] participants in the struggle,” he maintained, “have failed to fully understand that we were practically fighting an Asiatic nation in arms and almost every man a soldier in disguise and a violator” of the laws of war. But what did those laws mean to the United States during the conflict, and what does this indicate about the broader history of international law's relationship to empire?

The Responsibility of the Federal Government for Violations of the Rights of Aliens

1914 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-80
Author(s):  
Nelson Gammans
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government ◽  
American Flag

“The only government of this country, which other nations recognize or treat with, is the Government of the Union; and the only American flag known throughout the world is the flag of the United States.” The Government of the Union, as the only internationally recognized agent of the state, bears the responsibility for any violations of the rights which it owes to aliens, whether these rights are the result of treaty obligations or of international law.

The Federal Common Law of Crime

1986 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Palmer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Government ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Federal System ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Original Intent ◽  
The People

The United States Constitution established a federal system, not a national government. States continued necessarily and by design as active and important centers of governmental activity. States were institutions of inherent authority, while the federal government by original intent and then explicitly by amendment, was a government of only delegated powers. Since the federal government derived its power directly from the people and acted directly on individuals, it was decisively more powerful than the pre-Constitution Confederation. But the Bill of Rights itself is evidence of the continued worry, pervasive until modified by the Reconstruction Amendments, that the federal government might, but should not, overwhelm the states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document