scholarly journals UNITED STATES PROGRESS TOWARD ENACTMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE OIL SPILL LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION

1987 ◽  
Vol 1987 (1) ◽  
pp. 559-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Corbett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Broad Agreement ◽  
Conference Committee

ABSTRACT Comprehensive oil spill liability and compensation legislation, including adoption of two important international oil spill treaties, has eluded the United States for too long. Although there is broad agreement in the Administration, both houses of Congress, oil and shipping interests, state governments and the environmental community that we need comprehensive oil spill legislation, these often divergent interests have not been able, at least as of this writing (December 1986), to agree on a compromise package. Both houses of Congress passed bills during the 99th Congress, the latest House versions in Titles VI and VIII of H.R. 5300 and, in the Senate, S. 2799. These bills were dissimilar in several ways. However, most informed interests suggested that, had a compromise House bill emerged near the end of the Congress, a Senate-House conference committee could have reached agreement between the House offer and S. 2799. Unfortunately this did not occur. Also, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out favorably (to the full Senate), the ratification of the 1984 protocols to the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention (CLC and Fund), with a “reservation” and a number of “understandings.” The need for appropriate legislation arises from deficiencies in and the patchwork approach of current U.S. legislation.

Future of the International Conventions on Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage

1991 ◽  
Vol 1991 (1) ◽  
pp. 689-690
Author(s):  
Måns Jacobsson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intergovernmental Organization ◽  
Pollution Damage ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Set Up ◽  
International Conventions

ABSTRACT The international regime on oil spill liability and compensation is based on two international conventions, the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention. The Fund Convention establishes an intergovernmental organization, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPC Fund), with the task of administering the regime of compensation set up by that convention. At present, 67 nations are party to the Civil Liability Convention, 45 to the Fund Convention. The United States is not party to either. In 1984, the conventions were revised by two protocols, which provide higher compensation limits and a wider scope of application than the original conventions. These protocols have not yet come into force. The future of the compensation regime established by these conventions is examined here, with special attention to the prospects for the entry into force of the 1984 protocols. At present, the United States will not ratify these protocols.

COMPREHENSIVE OIL SPILL LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION

1989 ◽  
Vol 1989 (1) ◽  
pp. 513-514
Author(s):  
Charles R. Corbett ◽  
David M. Bovet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
The Public ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Alternative Measures ◽  
State Liability

ABSTRACT Comprehensive oil spill liability and compensation legislation has eluded the United States for about 12 years, despite the fact that well-crafted legislation would benefit all interested parties. The public would be better protected from catastrophic effects of oil spills; industry (both oil and shipping) would be provided reasonable limits of liability (or alternative measures); and state governments would become full partners in federally funded oil spill responses. Most of the parties who would be affected by oil spill legislation have made substantial contributions and shown increased flexibility since 1984. Still, one major hurdle must be crossed before legislation can become a reality: state liability law preemption.

scholarly journals The Abiding Relevance of Federalism to U.S. Foreign Relations

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 675-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis A. Bradley ◽  
Jack L. Goldsmith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court

The international law community has heavily criticized the United States’ handling of the Breard case. These criticisms are understandable. Perhaps because of the rush of time, the explanations by the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court for failing to stop Breard’s execution brushed over important issues of domestic and international law. In addition, Virginia’s decision to proceed with the execution, and the federal Government’s decision not to block it, may have reflected insufficient respect for international law and institutions. These decisions may also adversely affect U.S. relations with other nations and weaken consular protection of U.S. citizens abroad. These criticisms, however, tell only part of the story. In particular, they do not consider countervailing considerations grounded in the Constitution’s allocation of authority between the federal and state governments.

International Agreements and U.S. Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 155-171
Author(s):  
Jean Galbraith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
Administrative Reforms ◽  
Administrative Efficiency ◽  
International Commitments

Over its constitutional history, the United States has developed multiple ways of joining, implementing, and terminating treaties and other international commitments. This chapter provides an overview of the law governing these pathways and considers the extent to which comparative law has influenced them or could do so in the future. Focusing in particular on the making of international commitments, the chapter describes how, over time, the United States came to develop alternatives to the process set out in the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause, which requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. These alternatives arose partly from reasons of administrative efficiency and partly from presidential interest in making important international commitments in situations where two-thirds of the Senate would be unobtainable. These alternatives have had the effect of considerably increasing the president’s constitutional power to make international commitments. Nonetheless, considerable constraints remain on presidential power in this context, with some of these constraints stemming from constitutional law and others from statutory, administrative, and international law. With respect to comparative law, the chapter observes that U.S. practice historically has been largely but not entirely self-contained. Looking ahead, comparative practice is unlikely to affect U.S. constitutional law with respect to international agreements, but it might hold insights for legislative or administrative reforms.

Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Karen Knop
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The U.S

The two starting points for this chapter are that fields of law are inventions, and that fields matter as analytical frames. All legal systems deal with foreign relations issues, but few have a field of “foreign relations law.” As the best-stocked cabinet of issues and ideas, U.S. foreign relations law would be likely to generate the field elsewhere in the process of comparison. But some scholars, particularly outside the United States, see the nationalist or sovereigntist strains of the U.S. field, and perhaps even just its use as a template, as demoting international law. The chapter begins by asking whether this apprehension can be alleviated by using international law or an existing comparative law field to inventory the foreign relations issues to be compared. Finding neither sufficient, it turns to the U.S. field as an initial frame and sketches three types of anxieties that the U.S. experience has raised or might raise for international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting how Campbell McLachlan’s allocative conception of foreign relations law might be adapted so as to turn such anxieties about international law into opportunities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document