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.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-517
Author(s):  
Marian Nash (Leich)
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Government ◽  
Contemporary Practice

On March 3,1997, President William J. Clinton transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification as a treaty the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders, signed at Hong Kong on December 20,1996. In his letter of transmittal, President Clinton pointed out that, upon its entry into force, the Agreement would “enhance cooperation between the law enforcement communities of the United States and Hong Kong, and … provide a framework and basic protections for extraditions after the reversion of Hong Kong to the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997.” The President continued: Given the absence of an extradition treaty with the People’s Republic of China, this Treaty would provide the means to continue an extradition relationship with Hong Kong after reversion and avoid a gap in law enforcement. It will thereby make a significant contribution to international law enforcement efforts.The provisions of this Agreement follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. In addition, the Agreement contains several provisions specially designed in light of the particular status of Hong Kong. The Agreement’s basic protections for fugitives are also made expressly applicable to fugitives surrendered by the two parties before the new treaty enters into force.

James Brown Scott and the Rise of Public International Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hepp
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
International Law ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Lawyer ◽  
Legal Expertise ◽  
Insight Into

James Brown Scott played a key role in the growth of public international law in the United States from the 1890s to the 1940s. While little remembered today, he was well-known among his contemporaries as a leading spokesman for a new and important discipline. Scott rose from obscure middle-class origins to occupy a prominent and influential place as an international lawyer who shared his legal expertise with seven presidents and ten secretaries of state. By examining his life we gain insight into the establishment of public international law as a discipline and on the era when lawyersqualawyers began to help shape American foreign policy.

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.

Application of Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution in international context—fear of foreign prosecution as ground for invoking privilege against self-incrimination—relevance of growing international law enforcement cooperation—role of U.S. judiciary in foreign relations

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-764
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Diane Marie Amann
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Context ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Domestic Law

United States v. Balsys. 118 S.Ct. 2218.U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1998.Resolving a long-open question, the U.S. Supreme Court held in this 7-2 decision that a witness in a domestic proceeding may not invoke the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination if the witness fears that the testimony may be used in a prosecution outside the United States. Although grounded in domestic law, the three opinions in Balsys reveal tension between the judiciary's traditional deference to the political branches in foreign relations matters and its concern over the risk that individuals subject to prosecution abroad will suffer deprivation of liberty because of that deference.

Foreign Relations and the Judiciary

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 485-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Collins
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Lawyer ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship

It is not generally appreciated that Francis Mann was not an international lawyer at all by training. His thesis at Berlin University was in company law. It was only after he had been in England for some time that he began to write about private international law,1 and his interest in public international law was developed as a result of his friendship with Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. It was not until 1943 that he published anything about public international law, and in that year he published a substantial article in two parts on the relationship between national law and international law, in which he built on the previous work on Judicial Aspects of Foreign Relations by Louis Jaffe2 and on acts of state by Sir William Holdsworth.3 Subsequently he came to make this subject his own, at least in England,4 where the subject has never attracted the attention which it has attracted in the United States.5

The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Francis Donovan ◽  
Anthea Roberts
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Fundamental Value

Modern international law takes as a fundamental value the condemnation and redress of certain categories of heinous conduct, such as genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity. Recognizing the need to end impunity for those crimes, international law permits a state, by the principle of universal jurisdiction, to prosecute them even when they take place outside its territory and do not involve its nationals.In virtually all domestic legal systems, an individual who engages in wrongful conduct causing personal inj ury or death will be subject not only to criminal prosecution, but to a civil action by the injured party. Yet, though the principle of universal jurisdiction is well established in the criminal sphere, it is still regarded as novel in the civil context.Recent developments—most notably the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain—will cause greater examination of the function and scope of universal jurisdiction as authorization for national courts to hear civil claims based on heinous conduct proscribed by international law. We here consider whether a civil dimension of universal jurisdiction has emerged, whether it should correspond to the criminal dimension, and whether its use as a basis of jurisdiction should depend on the absence of effective remedies in jurisdictions with traditional links to the proscribed conduct.

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

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 444-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas F. Lowenfeld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
The U.S ◽  
High Seas

In the October 1989 issue of this Journal, I wrote a brief essay concerning the U.S. Constitution and law enforcement abroad. I called attention to the case of Fawaz Yunis, a Lebanese national who was arrested on the high seas by U.S. officers and brought to the United States for trial on charges of aircraft hijacking and hostage taking. Within the space constraints of the Journal’s issue commemorating two centuries of the Constitution, I was able to discuss only one of the questions illustrated by the Yunis case—the question of jurisdiction over crimes committed by aliens abroad. My conclusion, in brief, was that a general reliance on passive personality as the basis for jurisdiction—i.e., the U.S. nationality of victims of the offense—was of doubtful validity under the Constitution, but that jurisdiction based on legislation enacted in implementation of international conventions widely adhered to probably was constitutional. The Yunis case raises two other issues that I believe are of continuing interest: (1) to what extent do the constitutional and statutory restraints on U.S. law enforcement officers apply abroad? and (2) does the so-called Ker-Frisbie rule, according to which a court in the United States may try a person brought before it for a crime over which it has jurisdiction—regardless of how the accused came to be before the court—remain valid and persuasive in the last decade of the 20th century? I want to explore these questions here, bearing in mind that the two questions are related to each other, as well as to the question of jurisdiction to prescribe discussed in the earlier article. Before embarking on the analysis, I want to set forth again in somewhat greater length the saga of Fawaz Yunis, as well as that of two other persons recently seized abroad by authority of the United States for trial in the United States.

American doctrine of pre-emptive strike from Monroe to trump: international legal aspects

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Инсур Фархутдинов ◽  
Insur Farhutdinov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Interesting Phenomenon ◽  
Monroe Doctrine

This research is devoted to the study of actual theoretical and practical problems of international security law. The unique scientific publication examines the problems of development and transformation of the American Monroe doctrine, which until now remains an interesting phenomenon of world diplomacy and international law. The path from the James Monroe doctrine of 1823 to Donald trump's "America First" concept of 2017 is dramatic and contradictory not only for the United States, but also for the entire system of international relations. The Monroe doctrine was the first official expansionist concept of the United States. If D. Monroe is considered a pioneer of the American preventive military strike, then D. trump can be called a worthy successor of the doctrine of anticipating a military attack. Based on the analysis of foreign policy doctrines of all us presidents, the author comes to interesting scientific and practical assumptions and conclusions. The work is prepared for researchers, teachers, graduate students, students, legislators, civil servants, law enforcement officers, all interested in the current problems of international law and international relations. Recommended for use as a textbook in the disciplines of "International law", "International relations".

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document