Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Nash (Leich)
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Attorneys General ◽  
Civil Rights Division ◽  
Contemporary Practice ◽  
The U.S

On March 29,1995, the following officials of the executive branch of the U.S. Government appeared before the Human Rights Committee at the United Nations to discuss U.S. implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which had entered into force for the United States on September 8, 1992): John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and Conrad K. Harper, the Department’s Legal Adviser; Assistant Attorneys General Deval L. Patrick, Civil Rights Division, and Jo Ann Harris, Criminal Division; and Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Ada Deer. The same officials, together with other members of the U.S. delegation, appeared again on March 31, 1995, to reply to questions raised by the Committee.

The Fourth Restatement, International Law, and the “Terrorism” Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 391-410
Author(s):  
Beth Stephens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

This chapter evaluates the “terrorism” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets out to “restate” the law of the United States and “relevant portions of international law,” not to critique U.S. law or settle debates about the content of international law. However, that task is complicated when the law of the United States triggers questions about unresolved international law issues. The “terrorism” exception to the FSIA illustrates this complexity. Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary have employed the exception as a politically motivated weapon to target disfavored states, while excluding U.S. allies, politically powerful states, and the United States itself from the reach of the statute. The text of the Fourth Restatement merely restates the U.S. law governing the “terrorism” exception, without identifying international law concerns or analyzing the issues they raise. The chapter, by contrast, offers a critique of the “terrorism” exception, focusing on the statute as written, as amended to reach particular targets, and as applied in practice. A well-crafted statutory exception to sovereign immunity for state human rights violations would be a welcome addition to human rights accountability. The “terrorism” exception falls far short of that goal.

Palestine Unbound

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intention To Move ◽  
Arab Israeli Conflict ◽  
The U.S

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.

Remarks by Bert Lockwood

1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
Bert Lockwood ◽  
Beatrice Brickell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Justice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Southern Rhodesia

I would like to address myself to international outlaws and what domestic procedures are available to arrest their activities. While at first glance the nexus between domestic justice and international justice may seem tenuous, I wonder: Is it surprising that the same administration that is so insensate over the deprivation of the human rights of blacks in Southern Rhodesia is the same administration that proclaimed early in its tenure that if you have seen one slum you have pretty much seen them all, and hasn’t visited another since? Is it surprising that the same administration that evidences so little concern over the political rights of the majority in Rhodesia is the same administration that “bugs” and sabotages the political process within the United States?

The Law of Personal Status: Wives, Paupers, and Slaves

2019 ◽  
pp. 173-212
Author(s):  
Lawrence M. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
White Men ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Poor Laws ◽  
Marriage And Divorce ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on marriage and divorce, family property, adoption, poor laws and social welfare, and slavery and African Americans in the United States. In the colonial period, the United States had no courts to handle matters of marriage and divorce. Marriage was a contract—an agreement between a man and a woman. Under the rules of the common law, the country belonged to the whites; and more specifically, it belonged to white men. Women had civil rights but no political rights. There were no formal provisions for adoption. A Massachusetts law, passed in 1851, was one of the earliest, and most significant, general adoption law. The so-called poor laws were the basic welfare laws.

Accurately Counting Asian Americans Is a Civil Rights Issue

2018 ◽  
Vol 677 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Lee ◽  
Karthick Ramakrishnan ◽  
Janelle Wong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Asian Americans ◽  
Asian American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Census Bureau ◽  
Foreign Born ◽  
Data Disaggregation ◽  
Rights Issue ◽  
The U.S

Asian Americans are the fastest-growing group in the United States, increasing from 0.7 percent in 1970 to nearly 6 percent in 2016. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2065, Asian Americans will constitute 14 percent of the U.S. population. Immigration is fueling this growth: China and India have passed Mexico as the top countries sending immigrants to the United States since 2013. Today, two of three Asian Americans are foreign born—a figure that increases to nearly four of five among Asian American adults. The rise in numbers is accompanied by a rise in diversity: Asian Americans are the most diverse U.S. racial group, comprising twenty-four detailed origins with vastly different migration histories and socioeconomic profiles. In this article, we explain how the unique characteristics of Asian Americans affect their patterns of ethnic and racial self-identification, which, in turn, present challenges for accurately counting this population. We conclude by discussing policy ramifications of our findings, and explain why data disaggregation is a civil rights issue.

José Isabel Salas Galindo and Others: United States (Inter-Am. Comm'n H.R.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 738-822
Author(s):  
Rosa Celorio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Just Cause ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The U.S

On October 5, 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR or Commission) issued its long-awaited decision in the case of José Isabel Salas Galindo and Others concerning the United States. The case is related to the U.S. military intervention in Panama on December 20, 1989, which resulted in the ouster of General Manuel Noriega Moreno, the country's ruler at the time. This U.S. military operation—better known as “Operation Just Cause”—has been the subject of extensive commentary historically and wide reflection on the number of casualties, effects, legality, and scope.

Politics, economics, and U.S. participation in multilateral development banks

1982 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Schoultz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Major Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Multilateral Development Banks ◽  
Procedural Change ◽  
Development Banks ◽  
The U.S

In the 1970s the U.S. executive branch was forced to make a significant change in the procedure it uses to influence decisions by the multilateral development banks. This procedural change—from exclusive reliance on behind-the-scenes pressure to open voting in bank councils—reflects two more fundamental alterations: the relative diminution of U.S. power in bank councils and, especially, the development of increased congressional interest in formulating U.S. policy toward the banks. As a result of these two changes, the United States has identified publicly many of the policies it seeks to promote through the banks. Taken as a whole, the U.S. voting record indicates an abandonment of the verbal commitment to the liberal concept of maintaining the banks as apolitical financial institutions. Since the concept has never been a reliable guide to U.S. behavior in bank councils, its abandonment does not signify a major change in the relationship between the banks and the United States government. Rather, it signifies an opening of the U.S. political process, one that encourages public debate and multiple advocacy in the making of U.S. policy toward the banks.

Another Freedom Summer

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin D.G. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Freedom Summer ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
The U.S

During the summer of 2014, the U.S. government once again offered the State of Israel unwavering support for its aggression against the Palestinian people. Among the U.S. public, however, there was growing disenchantment with Israel. The information explosion on social media has provided the public globally with much greater access to the Palestinian narrative unfiltered by the Israeli lens. In the United States, this has translated into a growing political split on the question of Palestine between a more diverse and engaged younger population and an older generation reared on the long-standing tropes of Israel's discourse. Drawing analogies between this paradigm shift and the turning point in the civil rights movement enshrined in Mississippi's 1964 Freedom Summer, author and scholar Robin Kelley goes on to ask whether the outrage of the summer of 2014 can be galvanized to transform official U.S. policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document