Briefly Noted

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 180-182
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Central Bank ◽  
The United States ◽  
Armenian Genocide ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Republic Of Turkey

On August 8, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Bakalian v. Central Bank of Republic of Turkey, Case No. 13-55664. In this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensation from the Republic of Turkey and two Turkish national banks for lands that they claim were unlawfully confiscated from their ancestors during what the Court refers to as the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923. In 2006, California adopted a statute extending the statute of limitations for claims arising out of the Armenian Genocide to December 31, 2016. Thus, the claims filed by the plaintiffs in 2010 were not time-barred under the statute; however, the panel found that since the Court had previously found the statute to be unconstitutional, no statute existed to extend the statute of limitations and therefore the claims were time-barred. The panel held that since the claims were plainly time-barred, the Court need not address legal questions posed regarding Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act jurisdiction.

Bonnichsen v. United States: Time, Place, and the Search for Identity

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Harding
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cultural Identity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Native Hawaiians ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Clash Of Cultures ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Charged Case

On its surface, Bonnichsen v. United States is an administrative law case, reviewing a decision by the Secretary of the Interior regarding the appropriate reach of a specific set of legislative and regulatory rules. As such, Judge Gould, writing for a panel of the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) decided that the secretary's office had overstepped its bounds; in short, its interpretation of the rules in question was not reasonable. But underneath the legal categories, Bonnichsen is a much more complicated and politically charged case. It is about competing conceptions of history and spirituality. It is about sovereignty (although that word is not uttered once in the decision, aside from reciting a definition of Native Hawaiians) and the clash of cultures. It is less about the standards for decision making and more about who the appropriate decision makers are. It is a case about a man who lived 9,000 years ago and about how today we should understand his cultural identity.

The Origins and Establishment of the First Bank of the United States

1956 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.Wayne Morgan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Central Bank ◽  
The United States ◽  
Industrial Economy ◽  
Great Hope ◽  
National Bank ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Many

In the early days of the Republic, opposition to a national bank derived from fear, ignorance, and a basic cleavage of prophecy. To many persons banks were synonymous with speculation; others viewed them as “aristocratic engines” designed to advance the interests of the few over those of the many. Most important, however, was the discrepancy of viewpoints between those who envisaged an agricultural nation and those who already sensed the embryonic stirrings of a vast industrial economy. To the htter, a strong central bank seemed indispensable. The struggle to establish the First Bank of the United States emphasized the rural-urban cleavage that was to influence much nineteenth-century history. It was also a conspicuous early recourse to implied Constitutional powers, anathema to States' Rights defenders and a great hope of businessmen in a still feeble nation.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: Republic of Argentina v. B.G. Group PLC

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-534
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Ryan ◽  
Jonathan L. Greenblatt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
United Nations ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
The Republic

On January 17, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (‘‘D.C. Circuit’’) issued its decision in Republic of Argentina v. B.G. Group PLC, overturning a final award of a United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (‘‘UNCITRAL’’) arbitral tribunal issued in favor of BG Group PLC (‘‘BG Group’’). According to the Court, the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority by taking jurisdiction over the dispute when BG Group failed to first submit its claims to the courts of Argentina for a period of eighteen months, as required by the Agreement Between theGovernment of the UnitedKingdomof Great Britainand Northern Ireland andthe Government of the Republic of Argentina for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (the ‘‘U.K.-Argentina BIT’’).

The Turkish Straits in the Light of Recent Turkish-Soviet Russian Correspondence

1947 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 727-747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cemil Bilsel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
General Problem ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Republic Of Turkey

It will be remembered that notes were exchanged between the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Kussia, and the Republic of Turkey on the subject of the Turkish Straits which it was desired during the Potsdam talks to link with the general problem of peace. It is our intention to discuss the problem of the Straits in the light of these notes.

Territory and the Republic

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kal Raustiala
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Revolution ◽  
American History ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early American ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Geographic Expansion ◽  
The Republic ◽  
New Nation

The American Revolution birthed a new nation that, although small and weak, would eventually come to dominate world politics. The events of 1776 foreshadowed a range of future rebellions by peoples who chafed under imperialism and sought ultimately to control their own political destiny. In North America, as in the many independence movements since, the rebels aimed to do so by claiming and defending a distinct territory and declaring themselves a new state. The American Revolution was unusual, however, in that the new United States did not simply occupy territory that had been previously ruled by an existing Westphalian sovereign. The United States was instead surrounded by a vast expanse of land largely ungoverned (in the view of Europeans) by any other political entity. The nation began as thirteen colonies on the Atlantic coast, but over the next two centuries it enlarged its territory dramatically through a combination of conquest, purchase, and treaty. This story is central to American history, and the “extraordinary geographic expansion of the United States is critical to understanding the rise of the nation as a world power and global empire.” This chapter explores how the concept of territoriality was manifested and interpreted in early American law. The founding generation “was intensely interested in the geographic extent of the American polity.” How was this intense interest manifested? In what ways were established ideas about Westphalian territoriality reflected in the new Constitution? What legal questions did geographic expansion raise? In short, this chapter explores how eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century Americans understood and interpreted the links between sovereignty and soil. For several reasons the United States is particularly interesting in this regard. Federalism entails a central distinction between state and federal territory. For most of American history federal territory was substantial in size and, in large part due to conflicts over slavery, highly charged politically. How, if at all, constitutional protections differed in the states versus the territories was a question that would over time foment dramatic debate. The United States also contains many Indian tribes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document