Opening Remarks by Lucinda Low

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
Lucinda Low
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
International Security ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

When the Annual Meeting Committee began its planning process a year ago, they could not have foreseen the challenges that would confront international law and institutions following the U.S. elections, but both the committee and the Society's leadership felt that it would be important to adjust our plans to take account of this new landscape. And this is taking place throughout this annual meeting and most particularly through the three panels we're hosting at this same time each morning on “International Law and the Trump Administration,” and the first panel, as you know, today is on “National and International Security.”

Introductory Remarks by Oonagh Fitzgerald

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 22-22
Author(s):  
Oonagh Fitzgerald
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Security ◽  
Special Session ◽  
Good Morning ◽  
Trump Administration

Thanks very much, Lucinda. Good morning, everybody. It's my pleasure to welcome you to this special session on “International Law and the Trump Administration,” with a focus on national and international security.

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.

Photos from the Quarter

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-129
Keyword(s):  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

This sample of photos from 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018 aims to convey a sense of Palestinian life during this quarter. The images reflect the fallout from Trump administration policy toward the Palestinians, especially the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and also include scenes from Gaza, and the Ahed Tamimi trial.

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