Bank of Hawaii v. Balos

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 583-586
Author(s):  
Mark A. Chinen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Pacific Islands ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
District Court ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Republic

Plaintiff bank, incorporated under the laws of the state of Hawaii, brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii against defendants, residents and citizens of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). One of the defendants, Imata Kabua, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that diversity of citizenship did not exist because defendants were not citizens of a “foreign state” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(2). The district court (per King, J.) denied the motion and held that diversity jurisdiction exists because the RMI, although technically retaining membership in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI), has de facto become a foreign state.

The Negotiations for the Future Political Status of Micronesia (1980-1984)

1984 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 484-497
Author(s):  
Arthur John Armstrong ◽  
Howard Loomis Hills
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Pacific Islands ◽  
Free Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Political Status ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
New States

Fourteen years of Micronesian political status negotiations culminated in 1983 with the final signature of the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Governments of Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). Upon being approved in accordance with its terms and the constitutional processes of the signatory Governments, the Compact will establish bilateral relationships between the United States and the new states emerging from the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Approval of these future political status arrangements will also provide the basis for termination of the Trusteeship Agreement between the United States and the United Nations Security Council. The Compact defines an international political partnership between the United States and the freely associated states that is without precise precedent in international law or U.S. domestic practice. Under the Compact, each freely associated state will enjoy control over its internal affairs and its foreign relations, including competence to enter into international agreements. Mutual security arrangements, set forth in the Compact and its separate agreements, provide for a U.S. defense umbrella during the life of free association and long-term exclusion of third-country military forces, should any or all of the freely associated states opt for independence at some future date.

Weltover, Inc. v. Republic Of Argentina

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 560-564
Author(s):  
Joseph D. Pizzurro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs, two Panamanian corporations and a Swiss bank, brought an action against the Republic of Argentina and Banco Central de la República Argentina (Banco Central) for breach of obligations arising out of the issuance of certain bonds. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1602-1611 (1988)) (FSIA). In the alternative, defendants moved for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The district court denied the motions and held that: (1) the acts of the defendants in issuing, and breaching the payment obligations under, certain bonds were commercial, and the failure to pay on those bonds, which contemplated payment in New York, constituted a direct effect in the United States even though the plaintiffs were non-U.S. entities; (2) the aggregate of the defendants’ contacts with the United States, together with the promise to pay the plaintiffs in New York, satisfied the minimum contacts requirement under the due process clause; and (3) the defendants had not made a sufficient showing to justify a dismissal of the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

Who Closed the Sea? Archipelagoes of Amnesia Between the United States and Japan

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Dvorak
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Pacific Islands ◽  
The United States ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Mass Consciousness ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Mediating Factor

There is a profound lack of awareness among younger generations about Japan’s prewar engagement with the Pacific Islands, let alone other colonial sites, yet arguably, this amnesia is not a spontaneous phenomenon. Forgetting about Micronesia and erasing it from the Japanese mass consciousness was a project in which both Japanese and American postwar forces were complicit. Focusing on stories of Japanese amnesia and selective memory in the Marshall Islands, I explore the Marshallese notion of “closing the sea,” how U.S. power has long been a mediating factor in why Japanese forget their Pacific past, and also why Marshall Islanders remember it.

scholarly journals Multilateral Resource Negotiations Between Weak and Powerful States: The Case of the 1987 United States-Pacific Island Fisheries Treaty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sōsefo Fietangata Havea
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Pacific Islands ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pacific Island ◽  
Island States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Pacific Island States

<p>On April 2, 1987, the Treaty on Fisheries Between Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America was signed. The signatories to the Fisheries were the 16 members of the South Pacific Forum and the United States of America. After six difficult years of negotiations, the Treaty permitted American fishing vessels to fish in Pacific Islands’ waters in exchange for a substantial access fee. This thesis identifies key aspects of that treaty and examines what it meant from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. How did a collection of small, comparatively weak Pacific states strike a satisfactory deal with the most powerful state on the planet? What did the agreement mean in terms of its political, legal and environmental consequences? As well as looking at the events and negotiations that led to the treaty, this thesis also attempts to discern the key political lessons that flow from this case that might be relevant for the future development of the Pacific island States in the key area of fisheries regulation. The thesis argues that disputes between Pacific nations and the United States over tuna resources and the presence of the Soviet Union in the Pacific region were the two critical factors that led to the adoption of the Treaty. From the United States’ perspective, the Treaty was seen (at the time) as the only viable option if it were to reconsolidate its long and prosperous position in the Pacific region. The US did not want the Soviet Union to capitalize on American fishing disputes with the Pacific islands, and it could not afford for the Soviet Union to establish a strong association with the Pacific islands. The Treaty therefore served three purposes for Washington: (i) it maintained its long friendship with the Pacific islands, (ii) it maintained its fisheries interests in the region, (iii) and it kept the Pacific communist-free. This fusion of US economic and strategic interests gave Pacific Island States a stronger hand in the negotiations than their size and power would have otherwise offered.</p>

Burden-sharing: the US, Australia and New Zealand alliances in the Pacific islands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Wallis ◽  
Anna Powles
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Pacific Islands ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
Military Capability ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Security Challenges ◽  
The Us

Abstract One of President Joseph Biden's foreign policy priorities is to ‘renew’ and ‘strengthen’ the United States' alliances, as they were perceived to have been ‘undermined’ during the Trump administration, which regularly expressed concern that allies were free-riding on the United States' military capability. Yet the broad range of threats states face in the contemporary context suggests that security assistance from allies no longer only—or even primarily—comes in the form of military capability. We consider whether there is a need to rethink understandings of how alliance relationships are managed, particularly how the goals—or strategic burdens—of alliances are understood, how allies contribute to those burdens, and how influence is exercised within alliances. We do this by analysing how the United States–Australia and Australia–New Zealand alliances operate in the Pacific islands. Our focus on the Pacific islands reflects the United States' perception that the region plays a ‘critical’ role in helping to ‘preserve a free and open Indo-Pacific region’. We conclude that these understandings need to be rethought, particularly in the Pacific islands, where meeting non-traditional security challenges such as economic, social and environmental issues, is important to advancing the United States, Australia and New Zealand's shared strategic goal of remaining the region's primary security partners and ensuring that no power hostile to their interests establishes a strategic foothold.

The Applicability of the Principle of Self-Determination to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 21-28
Author(s):  
James M. Wilson ◽  
Angel Calderón-Cruz ◽  
John Tarkong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Pacific Islands ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Pacific

There can be no doubt that the principle of self-determination is applicable to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The UN Charter applies it. The United States as administering authority under its 1947 trusteeship agreement with the Security Council has explicitly and repeatedly recognized its applicability. The real question is precisely what elements of the principle are applicable, how they are to be applied, and within what framework.

scholarly journals Options and Choices in Relation to Adopting Healthy Lifestyles in the Pacific Islands Region

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-82
Author(s):  
Roy Smith
Keyword(s):  
Pacific Islands ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Health Transition ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Significant Burden ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Internal And External Factors ◽  
Lifestyle Related Diseases ◽  
Made In

The low-lying atoll states of the Pacific region, including Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, face numerous challenges as a result of climate change and the related rise in sea level. A health transition from communicable to noncommunicable lifestyle-related diseases among these communities is placing a significant burden on medical services and broader welfare provision. This article considers the broad range of both internal and external factors that influence the options available and choices made in relation to being able to maintain a healthy lifestyle in these communities.

Law Reform in a Developing Country: A New Code of Obligations for Senegal

1964 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-19
Author(s):  
E. Allan Farnsworth
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Developing Country ◽  
Legal Profession ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
The Republic

The Republic of Senegal has embarked upon a project to reform its private law. This fact, of itself, might not seem worthy of the attention of the legal profession in the United States, since Senegal is a country of only about 3,250,000 inhabitants, less than the population of the state of Alabama, covering only 76,000 square miles, less than the area of the state of Kansas, and having a total of exports and imports to the dollar zone of less than twelve million dollars in 1962. With twenty per cent of its population in its six largest cities of more than 30,000 inhabitants, it is the most urban, most literate, and most Europeanized of the francophonic countries of sub-Saharan Africa, but this alone would evoke little interest abroad in its attempts at law reform.

Language rights in the constitutions, organic acts, and statutes of the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo D. Faingold
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Samoa ◽  
Language Minority ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Minority Languages ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
Official Language ◽  
The Republic

Abstract The constitutions, organic acts, and statutes of the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States are given an exhaustive screening to identify legal language defining the linguistic obligations of each territory or associated state and the language rights of individuals and groups dwelling within. The author suggests that the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States are well served by “hands-on” policies declaring provisions that protect the rights of language minority groups, or of all people living in the territory (i.e., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa) and associated states (i.e., the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau). As in many states in the United States, the absence of an explicit language policy in the United States Virgin Islands has not prevented it from practicing implicit language policies that promote the use of English while also allowing minority languages to be used in the territory. Unlike many states in the United States which declare English as the sole official language and/or enact provisions to protect official English, none of the territories and associated states of the United States declares English as the sole official language or establishes provisions that hinder the rights of language minority groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document