scholarly journals United States Creates the U.S. Space Command and the U.S. Space Force to Strengthen Military Capabilities in Space

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-326
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
National Defense ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The U.S

President Trump first announced his plans for increasing U.S. military capabilities in space in 2018. In August 2019, his administration created the United States Space Command. With the passage in December 2019 of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, the United States established the United States Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces. These developments do not directly implicate international law, but they reflect a growing divergence between the U.S. approach to space and that taken by the UN General Assembly.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Nash
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Special Session ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
American States ◽  
Contemporary Practice ◽  
The U.S

On June 20, 1994, Ambassador Harriet C. Babbit, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States, deposited on behalf of the U.S. Government the instrument of ratification of the “Protocol of Washington,” adopted on December 14, 1992, by the Sixteenth Special Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States and signed by the United States on January 23, 1993, and the “Protocol of Managua,” adopted by the Nineteenth Special Session of the OAS General Assembly on June 10, 1993, and signed that day by the United States. The U.S. Senate had given its advice and consent to ratification of the Protocols on May 17, 1994, with two-thirds of the Senators present and concurring.

Why U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem Could Be Contrary to International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Kattan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Arab League ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The City ◽  
The U.S

President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the U.S. embassy to the city has been universally condemned, as it is contrary to a well-established rule of international law stipulating that states must not recognize the fruits of conquest. While the United States chose to exercise its right of veto in the UN Security Council to block a resolution criticizing the presidential decision, the remaining members of the council, including close U.S. allies, criticized it. Similarly, the UN General Assembly, the European Union, the Arab League, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have all passed strongly worded resolutions saying that they would not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including in and around Jerusalem. This paper examines the legal standing of the U.S. decision in light of previous positions that the United States has historically adopted or endorsed.

scholarly journals The Arafat Visa Affair: Exceeding The Bounds of Host State Discretion

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Michael Reisman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
International Law ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Host State ◽  
The U.S

Pacta sunt servandaThe U.S. refusal to permit Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to attend the 43d annual meeting of the General Assembly in New York was almost universally condemned as a violation of international law. Because Arafat publicly complied, on December 14, 1988, with the conditions the United States had long prescribed as prerequisite for direct contacts with the PLO, many have tended retroactively to validate the refusal to grant the visa, as a pragmatic and legitimate technique of diplomatic suasion. Consequently, it is all the more urgent that the record of international legal violation be confirmed, lest the refusal be cited, in the idiosyncratic fashion of international law, as precedent for future violations. Such a development would hasten the deterioration of the regime of restraints on the discretion of host states and reduce the effectiveness of resident international organizations.

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.

scholarly journals International Law in the US Legal System

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The U.S

International Law in the U.S. Legal System provides a wide-ranging overview of how international law intersects with the domestic legal system of the United States, and points out various unresolved issues and areas of controversy. Curtis Bradley explains the structure of the U.S. legal system and the various separation of powers and federalism considerations implicated by this structure, especially as these considerations relate to the conduct of foreign affairs. Against this backdrop, he covers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, executive agreements, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. He also explores a number of issues that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as treaty withdrawal, foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation, war powers, extradition, and extraterritoriality. This book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic, including various actions taken during the Trump administration, while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating to the U.S. Constitutional Founding. Written by one of the most cited international law scholars in the United States, the book is a resource for lawyers, law students, legal scholars, and judges from around the world.

Remarks by Stephen Pomper

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 123-127
Author(s):  
Stephen Pomper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Single Event ◽  
Humanitarian Emergency ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Face ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The U.S

We are having this conversation now because of the April 7 strikes on the Shayrat Airfield in Syria, but the question of how one justifies forcible measures in the context of a humanitarian emergency, and in the face of a deadlocked Security Council, is one that deserves urgent attention beyond the context of any single event. Progress toward answering this question has, however, been mired in a long-standing debate between those who believe that there is no credible international law justification for humanitarian intervention—and that the U.S. government should instead justify interventions like those taken at Kosovo and Shayrat as morally “legitimate”—and those who believe a legal justification can and should be put forward. I am very much in the latter camp and will use my time now to explain how I arrived at this position as a policy and as a legal matter by looking at three questions: the first question is whether legal justification is the direction that the United States should go in as a matter of policy. The second question is whether legal justification is credibly available as a matter of international law. The third question (which assumes the answer to the first and second is yes) is how to go about articulating and disseminating such a justification. Let me take these in order.

Basic U. S. Sources For Current Research In International Law: An Elementary Vade-Mecum

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolf Sprudzs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
The U.S

Among the many old and new actors on the international stage of nations the United States is one of the most active and most important. The U.S. is a member of most existing intergovernmental organizations, participates in hundreds upon hundreds of international conferences and meetings every year and, in conducting her bilateral and multilateral relations with the other members of the community of nations, contributes very substantially to the development of contemporary international law. The Government of the United States has a policy of promptly informing the public about developments in its relations with other countries through a number of documentary publication, issued by the Department of State

scholarly journals What Determines Foreign Policy in Latin America? Systemic versus Domestic Factors in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, 1946–2008

2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Octavio Amorim Neto ◽  
Andrés Malamud
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Voting Behavior ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Political ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
Systemic Variables

AbstractIs it domestic politics or the international system that more decisively influences foreign policy? This article focuses on Latin America's three largest powers to identify patterns and compare outcomes in their relations with the regional hegemon, the United States. Through a statistical analysis of voting behavior in the UN General Assembly, we examine systemic variables (both realist and liberal) and domestic variables (institutional, ideological, and bureaucratic) to determine their relative weights between 1946 and 2008. The study includes 4,900 votes, the tabulation of 1,500 ministers according to their ideological persuasion, all annual trade entries, and an assessment of the political strength of presidents, cabinets, and parties per year. The findings show that while Argentina's voting behavior has been determined mostly by domestic factors and Mexico's by realist systemic ones, Brazil's has a more complex blend of determinants, but also with a prevalence of realist systemic variables.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document