Forum Non Conveniens as a Substitute for the Internal Affairs Rule

Drawing on unique documents that have not yet been introduced into scientific use, the article reviews the activities of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs in training its agencies for probable border war with China. A series of events was conducted by Shchelokov, Minister of the Internal Affairs of the USSR, in order to strengthen the regional internal affairs agencies. It included introduction of a list of ‘advanced alert,’ ‘special period,’ and ‘covert mobilization’ signals, accompanied by a list of mandatory positions. The article focuses on the work of internal affairs agencies in the Far East border areas and the Khabarovsk special secondary school of militia of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR in particular, all of which hurried to fine-tune public order and state security maintenance, evacuation of the population and the internal affairs bodies in case of onset of the Special Period. Significantly, the Khabarovsk special secondary school of militia of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR was to become not just a base for accelerated training of officers, but also a military reserve in case of enemy assault. It also was to enforce public order in case of mass riots. The manpower strength of the school allowed to form a battalion of 3 rifle companies. The author underscores that all measures implemented by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR were carried out in close cooperation with the KGB under the Council of Ministers of the USSR and its regional agencies. Training for Special Period was multifaceted, it included propaganda support via mass media, control over radio-broadcasting in the territories bordering China, camouflage of installations at the expense of the forest fund, mobilization by rail and road transport, etc.

Download Full-text

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr261 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 45 (3) ◽

pp. 653 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jonathan Horlick ◽

Joe Cyr ◽

Scott Reynolds ◽

Andrew Behrman

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Oil And Gas ◽

The United States ◽

Human Rights Violations ◽

Law Of Nations ◽

Forum Non Conveniens ◽

The Government ◽

Oil And Gas Companies ◽

Political Question ◽

The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Download Full-text