The Fishermen's Protective Act: A Case Study in Contemporary Legal Strategy of the United States

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Strategy ◽  
The Law

The object of this article is to examine and evaluate the Fishermen's Protective Act, as reflecting the legal strategy of the United States in one particular area of its foreign relations law of importance to both the law of the sea and the law of international claims.

Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and the Ronald Reagan Administration in the United States

Istoriya ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (11 (109)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
German Gigolaev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
White House ◽  
Draft Convention ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law

The USA, as well as the USSR, initiated the convocation of the III UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973—1982). However, after the Ronald Reagan administration came to the White House, American diplomacy significantly changed its policy toward the Conference, which eventually resulted in US refusal to support the draft Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was worked out during the Conference. This behavior was in line with policy course of the Reagan administration — more aggressive than that of their predecessors. The article considers the American policy regarding Law of the Sea negotiations in the first months of Reagan's presidency, during the Tenth Session of the III UNCLOS.

The Law of the Sea Convention and Third States

1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke T. Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Critical Importance ◽  
Legal Question ◽  
The Law

The decision of the United States and 22 other countries not to sign the Law of the Sea Convention in Montego Bay, Jamaica, on December 10, 1982, raises the important question of the legal effects of the. Convention upon nonsignatories (hereinafter referred to as “third states”). Will the latter be entitled to claim and enjoy treaty provisions beneficial to them, such as those pertaining to military or commercial navigation through international straits, including submerged passage and overflight rights, or will these rights be considered as contractual in nature, exercisable only by states parties? Clearly, the question is of critical importance to the regime of the law of the sea. Since there has been to date no systematic legal analysis of this important question in debates surrounding the Law of the Sea Convention, this essentially legal question has been consigned to general policy pronouncements.

scholarly journals Treaty Self-Execution as “Foreign” Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 466-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan B. Hollis ◽  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States

This chapter considers how a state’s approach to foreign relations problems may have an external origin, or what we call “foreign” foreign relations law (FFRL). Using the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties as a case study, we find close parallels between manifestations of this distinction in various states and how it evolved in the United States, where the distinction was first articulated. The chapter explores whether these parallels reflect the distinction’s transplantation from one legal system to another or the organic development of similar doctrines to address similar problems within the states involved. The chapter then addresses the utility of differentiating the exogenous/endogenous origins of particular foreign relations doctrines. We argue that consideration of a doctrine’s exogenous origins raises questions that can deepen and develop the nascent field of comparative foreign relations law. Why do states accept (or reject) FFRL? How does FFRL enter a state’s system? Who is doing the transporting? What happens to FFRL in its new site(s)—i.e., how static or dynamic does the concept prove in different settings? Further research on such questions may, in turn, set the table for more normative questions such as when states should seek (or resist) the importation of foreign relations law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document