Recent Developments with Respect to the Continental Shelf

1948 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sea Bed ◽  
Recent Developments

The proclamation of the President of the United States on September 28, 1945, declaring as a matter of policy that the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf appertain to the United States, proves to have offered a marketable concept in the marts of international law. Six States have followed the example in the last three years, with certain notable modifications of their own, and it appears not improbable that the principle thus put forward may gain increasing acceptance in international practice. It seems appropriate therefore briefly to review various developments with respect to jurisdiction over the continental shelf, the epicontinental sea, and their resources.

U.S. Law Enforcement Abroad: The Constitution and International Law

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 880-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas F. Lowenfeld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Lawyer ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
New Applications

In recent years, the Congress of the United States has enacted a series of laws criminalizing certain activities committed outside the territory of the United States, even by persons who are not nationals of the United States. The international lawyer would doubtless characterize those laws as assertions by the United States of authority to exercise jurisdiction to prescribe laws on the basis of the principle of “passive personality”—to punish actions directed at the state’s nationals—or perhaps as new applications of principles of universal jurisdiction; one might then examine those laws in the light of recent developments in the international law governing state jurisdiction to prescribe.

I. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel H Joyner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Weapon ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Nonproliferation ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
The Past ◽  
Recent Developments

This article examines a number of major developments in international law and State policy regarding nuclear weapons which have occurred over the past two years.However, in order to understand the context and significance of these developments, I must first very briefly address what has gone on previously in this area of international relations.I have argued elsewhere that over the course of the decade ending in 2008 the original balance of principles underlying the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which comprises the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation legal regime, has been distorted, particularly by nuclear-weapon-possessing governments, led by the United States, in favor of a disproportionate prioritization of non-proliferation principles, and an unwarranted under-prioritization of peaceful use and disarmament principles.1 I also argue that this distortion of principled balance by nuclear weapon states has resulted in a number of erroneous legal interpretations of the NPT's provisions.

“The Greatest Nation on Earth”

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K.M. Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Manifest Destiny ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northern Mexico ◽  
Texas Revolution

Between 1820 and 1827 approximately 1,800 U.S. citizens immigrated to northern Mexico as part of that country’s empresario program, in which the federal government granted foreigners land if they promised to develop and secure the region. Historians have long argued that these settlers, traditionally seen as the vanguard of Manifest Destiny, were attracted to Mexico for its cheap land and rich natural resources. Such interpretations have lent a tone of inevitability to events like the Texas Revolution. This article argues that the early members of these groups were attracted to Mexico for chiefly political reasons. At a time when the United States appeared to be turning away from its commitment to a weak federal government, Mexico was establishing itself on a constitution that insured local sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, the Texas Revolution was far from the result of two irreconcilable peoples and cultures. Moreover, the role that these settlers played in the United States’ acquisition of not just Texas, but ultimately half of Mexico’s national territory, was more paradoxical than inevitable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document