scholarly journals Don’t Unleash the Privateers!: Privateering is NOT Legal under Contemporary International Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon Y. Xiao
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Letter To The Editor

Published version with editorial changes: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/july/comment-discussion. A Letter to the Editor arguing that privateering is not legal under contemporary international law, in response to Cancian and Schwartz’s article ‘Unleash the Privateers!’ and Schwartz’s article ‘U.S. Privateering Is Legal,’ both published by the Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute in April 2020.

The End of Empire and the Search for Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Linarelli ◽  
Margot E Salomon ◽  
Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Economic ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Order ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Neoliberal Ideology ◽  
First Time

This chapter is a study of the themes of the New International Economic Order (NIEO). It begins with the notion of justice that had been constructed in imperial law to justify empire and colonialism. The NIEO was the first time a prescription was made for justice in a global context not based on domination of one people over another. In its consideration of the emergence of a new notion of justice in international law, the chapter discusses the reasons for the origins of the NIEO, and goes on to describe the principles of the NIEO and the extent to which they came into conflict with dominant international law as accepted by the United States and European states. Next the chapter deals with the rise of the neoliberal ideology that led to the displacement of the NIEO and examines the issue of whether the NIEO and its ideals have passed or whether they continue to be or should be influential in international law. Finally, the chapter turns to the ideas of the NIEO alongside new efforts at promoting a fuller account of justice by which to justify and evaluate international law.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document