Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Nash
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Special Session ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
American States ◽  
Contemporary Practice ◽  
The U.S

On June 20, 1994, Ambassador Harriet C. Babbit, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States, deposited on behalf of the U.S. Government the instrument of ratification of the “Protocol of Washington,” adopted on December 14, 1992, by the Sixteenth Special Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States and signed by the United States on January 23, 1993, and the “Protocol of Managua,” adopted by the Nineteenth Special Session of the OAS General Assembly on June 10, 1993, and signed that day by the United States. The U.S. Senate had given its advice and consent to ratification of the Protocols on May 17, 1994, with two-thirds of the Senators present and concurring.

scholarly journals The Arafat Visa Affair: Exceeding The Bounds of Host State Discretion

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Michael Reisman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
International Law ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Host State ◽  
The U.S

Pacta sunt servandaThe U.S. refusal to permit Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to attend the 43d annual meeting of the General Assembly in New York was almost universally condemned as a violation of international law. Because Arafat publicly complied, on December 14, 1988, with the conditions the United States had long prescribed as prerequisite for direct contacts with the PLO, many have tended retroactively to validate the refusal to grant the visa, as a pragmatic and legitimate technique of diplomatic suasion. Consequently, it is all the more urgent that the record of international legal violation be confirmed, lest the refusal be cited, in the idiosyncratic fashion of international law, as precedent for future violations. Such a development would hasten the deterioration of the regime of restraints on the discretion of host states and reduce the effectiveness of resident international organizations.

scholarly journals United States Creates the U.S. Space Command and the U.S. Space Force to Strengthen Military Capabilities in Space

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-326
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
National Defense ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The U.S

President Trump first announced his plans for increasing U.S. military capabilities in space in 2018. In August 2019, his administration created the United States Space Command. With the passage in December 2019 of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, the United States established the United States Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces. These developments do not directly implicate international law, but they reflect a growing divergence between the U.S. approach to space and that taken by the UN General Assembly.

Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Karen Knop
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The U.S

The two starting points for this chapter are that fields of law are inventions, and that fields matter as analytical frames. All legal systems deal with foreign relations issues, but few have a field of “foreign relations law.” As the best-stocked cabinet of issues and ideas, U.S. foreign relations law would be likely to generate the field elsewhere in the process of comparison. But some scholars, particularly outside the United States, see the nationalist or sovereigntist strains of the U.S. field, and perhaps even just its use as a template, as demoting international law. The chapter begins by asking whether this apprehension can be alleviated by using international law or an existing comparative law field to inventory the foreign relations issues to be compared. Finding neither sufficient, it turns to the U.S. field as an initial frame and sketches three types of anxieties that the U.S. experience has raised or might raise for international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting how Campbell McLachlan’s allocative conception of foreign relations law might be adapted so as to turn such anxieties about international law into opportunities.

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.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-348
Author(s):  
Marian Nash Leich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Conventional Weapons ◽  
Contemporary Practice

On January 7, 1997, President William J. Clinton transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the following Protocols to the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects: (A) the amended Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-traps and Other Devices, adopted at Geneva on May 3, 1996 (Protocol II, or amended Mines Protocol); (B) the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, adopted at Geneva on October 10, 1980 (Protocol III, or the Incendiary Weapons Protocol) ; and (C) the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, adopted at Geneva on May 3, 1996 (Protocol IV).

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1969 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-336
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Department Of Defense ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Counsel ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Legal Adviser ◽  
Contemporary Practice

The material for this section is compiled by Stephen L. Gibson, attorney in the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State. Jerome H. Silber, of the Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense, has provided material originating in that Department.

scholarly journals International Law in the US Legal System

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The U.S

International Law in the U.S. Legal System provides a wide-ranging overview of how international law intersects with the domestic legal system of the United States, and points out various unresolved issues and areas of controversy. Curtis Bradley explains the structure of the U.S. legal system and the various separation of powers and federalism considerations implicated by this structure, especially as these considerations relate to the conduct of foreign affairs. Against this backdrop, he covers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, executive agreements, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. He also explores a number of issues that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as treaty withdrawal, foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation, war powers, extradition, and extraterritoriality. This book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic, including various actions taken during the Trump administration, while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating to the U.S. Constitutional Founding. Written by one of the most cited international law scholars in the United States, the book is a resource for lawyers, law students, legal scholars, and judges from around the world.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-111
Author(s):  
Marian Nash
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
George Bush ◽  
Environment And Development ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Contemporary Practice

On September 8, 1992, President George Bush transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted at New York on May 9, 1992, by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change and signed on behalf of the United States at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro on June 12, 1992.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document