The Unrecognized Government in American Courts

1932 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin M. Borchard

The recent governmental policy of withholding recognition from foreign governments long and firmly established, because they are disapproved, has caused confusion in the conduct of international affairs and in the administration of justice in the courts. In late years this has been particularly exemplified in the relations of the United States with the Soviet Government of Russia, but it has had illustrations on earlier occasions in connection with Mexico and other countries, when a desire to express disapproval of certain foreign governments or their policies has induced, through the purported privilege of withholding recognition, the concomitant policy of intervention, reprisals, and non-intercourse.

1968 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer Plischke

As Chief of State and head of government, the President is the epicenter of the management of American external relations and the formulation of foreign policy. Not only does he welcome the leaders of other countries who come on summit visits, receive personally the diplomatic emissaries of foreign governments accredited to the United States, and participate in many other formal diplomatic functions, but he also is responsible for executing those segments of the law that pertain to international affairs, for appointing United States diplomats and communicating with other governments, for making treaties, and for initiating and enunciating foreign policy. Addressing himself to the last of these, President Truman cryptically declared: “The President makes foreign policy.” Dean Rusk later commented that this “is not the whole story,” but “it serves very well if one wishes to deal with the matter in five words.”


1943 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harwood L. Childs

Even before the outbreak of war between the United States and the Axis powers on December 7, 1941, public officials in Washington had taken steps to deal with public opinion problems arising out of the belligerent trends in international affairs. One of the first moves of the federal government was an effort to identify and disclose the extent and nature of propaganda activities on behalf of foreign governments in the United States. On June 8, 1938, Congress passed the McCormack Act vesting authority in the Department of State to issue and administer rules and regulations governing the registration of agents of foreign principals engaged in propaganda and related activities in this country. This action, designed to protect the American public mind by revealing the extent to which foreign countries were using American channels of communication to further their own ends, was soon followed by official actions to strengthen the public opinion and cultural bonds linking together the various peoples of the Western Hemisphere. On July 27, 1938, the Department of State established its Division of Cultural Relations.


1925 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-272
Author(s):  
Edwin D. Dickinson

The prolonged interval during which the United States declined to recognize the government functioning in Mexico, and the still more protracted period during which recognition has been withheld from the de facto government in Russia, have produced some unusually interesting problems with respect to the appropriate judicial attitude toward an unrecognized de facto foreign government. In Mexico the recognized Carranza regime was overthrown by revolution in the spring of 1920, and General Obregon was inaugurated president on the first of December in the same year, yet it was not until August 31, 1923, that the Obregon Government received recognition from the United States. In Russia the recognized Provisional Government of Kerensky fell before the onslaughts of the Bolsheviki in December, 1917, and the Soviet Government established by the Bolsheviki soon acquired virtually undisputed control of most of the old empire, yet the Soviet règime remains unrecognized by the United States even at the present day. During intervals thus abnormally prolonged it has become increasingly difficult for the courts to resolve the cases which arise by applying the simple arbitrary formula that all matters of recognition are for the political departments to decide. More and more it has become evident that cases may arise in which the courts, without deprecating in any way the general principle which the formula is conceived to express, may be justified in taking account in some degree of de facto foreign governments from which recognition has been withheld. It is proposed to consider here only the more recent English and American cases. The cases considered may be grouped under three heads.


2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-609

The Trump administration formally recognized Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela on January 23, 2019, making the United States the first nation to officially accept the legitimacy of Guaidó’s government and reject incumbent President Nicolás Maduro's claim to the presidency. In a campaign designed to oust Maduro from power, the United States has encouraged foreign governments and intergovernmental organizations to recognize Guaidó and has imposed a series of targeted economic sanctions to weaken Maduro's regime. As of June 2019, however, Maduro remained in power within Venezuela.


1939 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-291
Author(s):  
Clark H. Woodward

In the conduct of foreign policy and the participation of the United States in international affairs, the relation between the Navy and the Foreign Service is of vital importance, but often misunderstood. The relationship encompasses the very wide range of coördination and coöperation which should and must exist between the two interdependent government agencies in peace, during times of national emergency, and, finally, when the country is engaged in actual warfare. The relationship involves, as well, the larger problem of national defense, and this cannot be ignored if the United States is to maintain its proper position in world affairs.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 762-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond Jagmohan

Woodrow Wilson is the only American political scientist to have served as President of the United States. In the time between his political science Ph.D. (from Johns Hopkins, in 1886) and his tenure as president (1913–21), he also served as president of Princeton University (1902–10) and president of the American Political Science Association (1909–10). Wilson is one of the most revered figures in American political thought and in American political science. The Woodrow Wilson Award is perhaps APSA’s most distinguished award, given annually for the best book on government, politics, or international affairs published in the previous year, and sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation at Princeton University.Wilson has also recently become the subject of controversy, on the campus of Princeton University, and in the political culture more generally, in connection with racist statements that he made and the segregationist practices of his administration. A group of Princeton students associated with the “Black Lives Matter” movement has demanded that Wilson’s name be removed from two campus buildings, one of which is the famous Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (see Martha A. Sandweiss, “Woodrow Wilson, Princeton, and the Complex Landscape of Race,” http://www.thenation.com/article/woodrow-wilson-princeton-and-the-complex-landscape-of-race/). Many others have resisted this idea, noting that Wilson is indeed an important figure in the history of twentieth-century liberalism and Progressivism in the United States.A number of colleagues have contacted me suggesting that Perspectives ought to organize a symposium on the Wilson controversy. Although we do not regularly organize symposia around current events, given the valence of the controversy and its connection to issues we have featured in our journal (see especially the September 2015 issue on “The American Politics of Policing and Incarceration”), and given Wilson's importance in the history of our discipline, we have decided to make an exception in this case. We have thus invited a wide range of colleagues whose views on this issue will interest our readers to comment on this controversy. —Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor.


1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94
Author(s):  
Sonya D. Winner

In 1985 two intelligence agencies of the South Korean Government announced that they had successfully disrupted a North Korean spy ring operating in the United States. Their press release, which was widely publicized in the Korean press, named Chang-Sin Lee as a North Korean agent associated with a spy ring at Western Illinois University, where Lee had been a student. The story was picked up and reported in the United States by six Korean-American newspapers and a public television station. When Lee sued for libel, the defendants relied upon the official report privilege, which gives absolute protection to the accurate republication of official government reports. The district court, holding that the privilege applied and that Lee had not overcome it by showing malice, dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which in a two to one decision reversed (per Ervin, J.) and held: that the official report privilege does not apply to the republication of official reports of foreign governments. Judge Kaufman, sitting by designation, dissented from the majority’s reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment.


1976 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Penrose

Oil is a highly political commodity and has more than once taken the centre of the stage in international affairs. This is not surprising in view of its importance in industry and transportation as well as for military activities. Mesopotamian oil was a crucial consideration in a number of the political settlements in the Middle East after the First World War, with the French, British and Americans playing the leading roles, just before that war the British navy had converted to oil, and Britain considered the security of her oil supplies to be an important objective of foreign policy. She had no domestic production. In the 1920s the United States began to fear that her oil reserves were becoming dangerously depleted and she also felt that her security as well as her prosperity depended on obtaining control of oil abroad. The United States sought access to oil concessions in the Middle East, and the diplomatic skirmishes were sharp as the British and Dutch tried to keep her out, not merely from the Middle East, but from south-eastern Asia as well, where production was dominated by the Dutch. Thus oil was an important source of controversy in the foreign policy of a number of countries in the inter-war period.


China Report ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 000944552110470
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Nathan

The Biden Administration has accepted the Trump Administration’s definition of China as a ‘strategic competitor’, and has retained Trump’s tariffs, the ‘Quad’, and the upgrade in Taiwan’s protocol status. But Biden’s China policy is different from Trump’s in being truly strategic. The key elements of that strategy are focused on improving the United States’ competitiveness domestically and in international affairs; cooperation with allies and partners; an emphasis on human rights; partial decoupling of economic and technology relationships; and a search for some areas of cooperation with China. Success for the Biden strategy would consist neither of bottling up China in its current global power position nor in achieving a negotiated condominium in Asia. The Biden Administration would succeed if the United States can maintain its alliance system, keep a robust military presence in East Asia and prevent the forcible integration of Taiwan into China while avoiding major war. Several features of the China challenge make it reasonable to hope that such success is possible.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document