Introductory Remarks by Scott Anderson

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 141-158
Author(s):  
Scott Anderson
Keyword(s):  
International Institutions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
The Past ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Trump Administration

Over the past two years, we have really seen the Trump administration make treaty withdrawal something of a signature move, from the Treaty of Amity with Iran to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, to the Optional Protocol for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The administration has taken steps to remove the United States, rightly or wrongly, from a wide array of longstanding international legal obligations. And while it is far from unprecedented, the administration has done so at a little bit of a faster pace than certain prior administrations have—and has embedded a lot of these moves within a consistent critique of international institutions and international commitments that promises further change on the horizon.

scholarly journals Trump Administration Announces Withdrawal from Four International Agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-141
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Court ◽  
Trump Administration

In October of 2018, the Trump administration announced that the United States would withdraw from four international agreements. On October 3, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would withdraw from the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights with Iran. Later that day, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced that the United States was also withdrawing from the Optional Protocol to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). Both withdrawals were triggered by pending International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases grounded in these treaties that were recently brought against the United States. Two weeks later, in an escalation of the ongoing trade dispute with China, the United States gave notice of withdrawal from the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the international body charged with overseeing the international mailing system. Finally, on October 22, 2018, President Trump announced that the United States would be terminating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia. Unlike other withdrawals undertaken by the Trump administration, this latest round involved three Article II treaties to which the Senate had provided its advice and consent. In addition, the international commitments withdrawn from in this round were long-standing ones, with U.S. participation in the UPU going back as far as 1875.

scholarly journals Introduction: International Institutions and Peaceful Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-459
Author(s):  
Kai He ◽  
T. V. Paul ◽  
Anders Wivel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Investment Bank ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The United Nations

The rise of “the rest,” especially China, has triggered an inevitable transformation of the so-called liberal international order. Rising powers have started to both challenge and push for the reform of existing multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and to create new ones, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The United States under the Trump administration, on the other hand, has retreated from the international institutions that the country once led or helped to create, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the Paris Agreement; the Iran nuclear deal; the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The United States has also paralyzed the ability of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to settle trade disputes by blocking the appointment of judges to its appellate body. Moreover, in May 2020, President Trump announced his decision to quit the Open Skies Treaty, an arms control regime designed to promote transparency among its members regarding military activities. During the past decade or so, both Russia and the United States have been dismantling multilateral arms control treaties one by one while engaging in new nuclear buildups at home.

Fun v. Pulgar and Albergrin

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 722-727
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Domestic Servant ◽  
The Law ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Action by domestic servant alleging that she had been trafficked and forced to work by former employers — Certification of diplomatic status of former employers — Whether diplomatic immunity continuing despite subsequent termination of diplomatic status — Whether commercial activity exception applicable to hiring of domestic servant — Whether subsequent attempts at service defective — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction — The law of the United States

scholarly journals United States Initiates Withdrawal from Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 631-634
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Intermediate Range ◽  
Trump Administration

On February 2, 2019, the United States formally notified Russia that it would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in six months and that, effective immediately, it was suspending its performance under the treaty in light of Russia's material breach. This decision came more than three months after the Trump administration indicated that the United States was planning to withdraw from the treaty.

Settlement of Disputes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Court ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

This chapter considers the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes as discussed in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. As a general rule, disputes over the interpretation or application of the Convention must be resolved speedily by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other authorities of the receiving State in determining whether criminal proceedings may be brought, by national courts when diplomatic immunity is pleaded, or by governments in deciding on whether a member of mission should be recalled or more generally on the level at which they wish to maintain diplomatic relations. According to the protocol, disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.

scholarly journals Palestine Brings a Case Against the United States in the International Court of Justice at a Fraught Time for U.S.-Palestinian Relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-149
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Relationship

While Palestine considers itself a state, the United States does not currently recognize it as such. The relationship between the two has continued to deteriorate following the December 2017 announcement that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there. Alleging that the embassy relocation violates international law, Palestine brought a case against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in September of 2018. The United States reacted by announcing its withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol). Also in the fall of 2018, the Trump administration closed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, curtailed its own Palestinian-focused mission in Jerusalem, and sharply cut U.S. funding focused on Palestinian interests.

Alive and Kicking: The Greatly Exaggerated Death of Nuclear Deterrence

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-77
Author(s):  
J. Peter Scoblic
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Deterrence ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
The Past

Despite the radical changes in the global political and military situation in the past ten years, U.S. nuclear forces retain the same mission and the same basic structure they had when Moscow was the seat of the “Evil Empire.” As it has for decades, the United States maintains thousands of nuclear warheads on a variety of land-, sea- and air-based platforms. These forces are on a level of high alert, ready to launch within minutes of an attack warning. It is a distinctly Cold War footing in a world that has long since come in from the cold of U.S.–Soviet antagonism.

Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: A New Regime is Soon to be Adopted by The United States

1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo J. Harris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
The Future

As soon as the House of Representatives considers and passes the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1967, and the President signs the new Act into law, the United States will proceed to deposit its ratification of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. These two documents will make rather extensive changes in United States law and practice with respect to diplomatic privileges and immunities. It will be the purpose of this article to give a capsule summary of the manner in which the Diplomatic Relations Act may be anticipated to operate in the future, and to indicate the pertinent areas in which the previous United States law and practice will be affected thereby.

scholarly journals Kepentingan Negara-Negara Arab (Uni Emirat Arab, Bahrain, Sudan dan Maroko) Melakukan Normalisasi Hubungan dengan Israel

2021 ◽  
pp. 67-84
Author(s):  
Yulia Rimapradesi ◽  
Ahmad Sahide
Keyword(s):  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
The United States ◽  
Arab Countries ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
Arab States

Arab states and Israel has for decades had dividing wall for diplomatic relations. The existence of ideological differences between Islam and Judaism as well as a long history of colonialism and conflict makes it difficult to unravel the conflict between of them. However, this seems to change, towards the end of 2020 with the encouragement of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Arab countries seem to forgot the events of the past and break up the wall that previously served as a barrier between them and Israel. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco has reasons what they thinks are rationality that their initial stance in favor of Palestinian independence seems to be waning. This paper discuss about the interests of the Arab states in the the normalization of their relationship with Israel. The research method in this paper is qualitative method with inductive analysis with the latest data from various document sources as material for analysis. This paper concludes the interests of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco are dominated by security and the economy for their countries.

The MAD Nuclear Policy

Worldview ◽  
1972 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
Paul Ramsey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Thinking ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
The Past ◽  
Nuclear Policy ◽  
The Difference ◽  
To Come

What are the imperatives for strategic thinking for the seventies? At the beginning of the seventies the United States adheres even more firmly to a policy of minimum or finite deterrence. Our power at all other levels of war and deterrence is increasingly challenged or outstripped. Even the possible vulnerability of our nuclear forces is tolerated for the sake of strategic disarmament treaties to come. It is difficult to tell the difference, for example, between editorials on strategic questions in the New York Times over the past two or three years and Dulles's “more bang for a buck” policy. The upshot seems clearly to be a i greater reliance on the most politically immoral nuclear posture imaginable, namely, Mutual Assured Destruction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document