The Intent to Destroy Groups in the Genocide Convention: The Proposed U.S. Understanding

1984 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. LeBlanc
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention) in December 1948. A representative of the United States signed the Convention, and President Truman later transmitted it to the Senate with a request that it give its advice and consent to ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Convention in 1950. It has since held hearings on four occasions (1970, 1971, 1977 and 1981), and favorably reported the Convention to the Senate four times (1970, 1971, 1973 and 1976). However, the Senate has failed to act; a resolution of ratification was debated on the floor in 1973-1974, but it fell victim to a filibuster and the Convention remains in committee.

Changing Patterns in the Voting Success of Member States in the United Nations General Assembly: 1945–1966

1969 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward T. Rowe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Changing Patterns ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The One ◽  
New Situation

In recent years considerable concern has been expressed in the United States over the changing composition of the United Nations membership and the failure of the one-state, one-vote formula in the General Assembly to reflect the actual power and significance of the different United Nations Members. “Malapportionment” as such is frequently not the issue here, for whether one looks at population, wealth, or budget assessments the United Nations General Assembly has always been “malapportioned.” And, at least in terms of population, the United Nations is no more malapportioned now than it was in 1945. Rather than a concern with a new situation, the growing emphasis on this issue is often a reflection of the fear that malapportionment will now operate to the disadvantage of the United States; that is, the ”overrepresented” states of today may not be as closely associated with the United States as the ”overrepresented” states of the past.

The United States, the United Nations, and the Cold War

1971 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward T. Rowe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Political Relationships ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Cold War

The nature of political relationships in the United Nations is of considerable interest to students of international organization and, to a lesser degree, to students of international politics. One important aspect of this question concerns the extent to which Western states as a group and the United States in particular dominate the organization. In their examination of this issue many authors contend that the United States prevailed over the United Nations General Assembly during the assembly's earliest years but progressively lost its control as the membership of the organization increased. Their findings, with some variations in detail, indicate that prior to the first significant membership increase in 1955 the United States, with an automatic two-thirds majority in the General Assembly, was dominant. In their view the United States position from 1955 through 1959 was considerably weakened but remained strong enough to ensure favorable decisions by the organization. With further increases in membership during and after 1960, however, they suggest that United States predominance came to an end. Now the newer, less developed, and nonaligned states determine the character and concerns of the UN.

scholarly journals Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane McAdam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Global Compact ◽  
International Protection ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations

On September 19, 2016, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a set of commitments to enhance the protection of refugees and migrants, known as the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. In the Declaration, all 193 member states of the United Nations reaffirmed the importance of the international protection regime and committed to strengthening and enhancing mechanisms to protect people on the move. They also agreed to work toward the adoption of a global compact on refugees and a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration. These two compacts were drafted through separate processes over eighteen months in 2017–18 and formally adopted by the General Assembly in December 2018. One hundred and fifty-two states voted in favor of the adoption of the Migration Compact, while twelve countries abstained from the vote (Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Italy, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Romania, Singapore, and Switzerland), and five countries voted against (Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, and the United States).

The Nonproliferation Treaty: Its Negotiation and Prospects

1969 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 788-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. L. M. Burns
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

The Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENDC) devoted its major efforts from the endof July 1965 until April 1968 to negotiating the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, spending little time on other arms control measures in the sessions throughout this period. In May 1968 the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics jointly presented the draft treaty to the First (Political and Security) Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. After lengthy debate and acceptance of several amendments to meet the wishes of nonnuclear states the Treaty reached its final form on May 21, 1968, and was “commended” in General Assembly Resolution 2373 (XXII) of June 12, 1968.

A Law of the Future or A Law of the Past? Modern Tribunals and the International Law of Expropriation

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 474-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M. Norton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Full Compensation ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was fact, today is doctrine.Junius†Less than twenty years ago, a large majority of the United Nations General Assembly declared the customary international law of expropriation dead. Eighty-six governments supported a resolution holding that a state expropriating foreign property “is entitled to determine the amount of possible compensation and the mode of payment, and … any disputes which might arise should be settled in accordance with the national legislation of [that] State.” Scholars cited this and other General Assembly resolutions as evidence that international law no longer required full compensation for the expropriation of foreign property. This view had sufficient support to precipitate an acrimonious dispute in the preparation of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, which reaffirmed only in its later drafts the traditional “Hull formula.”

scholarly journals Forty Years of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (XXX) on Zionism and Racism: the Brazilian Vote as an instance of United States - Brazil Relations

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
NORMA BREDA DOS SANTOS ◽  
EDUARDO UZIEL
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract In 1975, Brazil voted in favor of the United Nations General Assembly resolution 3379 (XXX), equating Zionism with a form of racism. Focusing on the decision-making process of president Ernesto Geisel's (1974-1979) foreign policy, "responsible pragmatism", this article discusses how the ultimate decision to vote in favor of resolution was taken taking into account mainly US-Brazil relationship.

U.S. Provisional Application of the 1994 Deep Seabed Agreement

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 705-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Provisional Application ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Do So

On July 28, 1994, the United States voted at the United Nations General Assembly in favor of a resolution endorsing the new Agreement that essentially amends the deep seabed regime (Part XI) of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and calls on states to ratify the Convention. Shortly thereafter, it signed the new Agreement. Plans call for the Convention to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in October 1994 and for hearings to be held during the next Congress in the spring of 1995. By signing the Agreement, the United States will provisionally apply the deep seabed regime, as amended, until the United States becomes a party to the Convention or decides not to do so. In this paper I examine whether such provisional application is appropriate under the U.S. system of government.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document