scholarly journals U.S. Consideration of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention

Ethnologies ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 325-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Kurin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intangible Cultural Heritage ◽  
United Nations Educational ◽  
Cultural Organization ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
October 17 ◽  
The U.S

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, voted overwhelmingly at the biennial meeting of its General Conference in Paris on October 17, 2003 to adopt a new international Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. That Convention became international law on April 30, 2006. By the end of 2006 it had been ratified or accepted by 68 countries; today, that number is approaching universal acceptance with more than 160 nations having acceded to the convention. At the 2003 session, some 120 nation-members voted for the convention; more registered their support subsequently. No one voted against it; only a handful of nations abstained – Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States among them. Within some of those nations, debate over whether to ratify the treaty continues. In this paper, the author considers the convention and unofficially examines the U.S. government position with regard to why support for it was withheld in 2003, how deliberations have proceeded since then, and whether or not the U.S. might ultimately accept the treaty.

Comparing Interpretations of States’ and Non-State Actors’ Obligations Toward Cultural Heritage in Armed Conflict and OccupationMilitary Manuals and the Law of War

2020 ◽  
pp. 56-81
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Varner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The United Kingdom

The 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954 Hague Convention) remains the leading treaty on the treatment of cultural heritage during armed conflict and occupation. After several decades of relative dormancy, eleven States have joined the 1954 Hague Convention in the last decade, including two major military powers: the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition to the 1954 Hague Convention, a host of laws touch on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, as well as those under customary international law. Nonetheless, there are disagreements in interpretations of States’ obligations toward cultural property during armed conflict stemming from a variety of factors. These factors can include: whether States are Parties to the instrument that conveys the obligation or if the obligation is one of customary international law, which itself is often contested; the individual State’s interpretation; interpretation by tribunals; and a plethora of other factors. Given these discrepancies in interpretation, a review of States’ military manuals is useful to see if they shed any light on the State’s interpretation of their obligations toward cultural property under the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and international obligations in LOAC more generally. This chapter will analyze and compare the military manuals of the United States and the United Kingdom to determine how they elucidate several key issues in the protection of cultural property during armed conflict, such as the definition of ‘cultural property’, requirements for ‘respect’, the doctrine of military necessity, and laws applicable in non-international armed conflicts.

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.

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.

scholarly journals International Student Transitions

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Sharif Uddin
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Students ◽  
International Student ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The U.S

Andrade and James Hartshorn (2019) surrounds the transition that international students encounter when they attend universities in developed countries in pursuit of higher education. Andrade and James Hartshorn (2019) describe how some countries like Australia and the United Kingdom host more international students than the United States (U.S.) and provides some guidelines for the U.S. higher education institutions to follow to host more international students. This book contains seven chapters.

Remarks by Stephen Pomper

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 123-127
Author(s):  
Stephen Pomper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Single Event ◽  
Humanitarian Emergency ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Face ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The U.S

We are having this conversation now because of the April 7 strikes on the Shayrat Airfield in Syria, but the question of how one justifies forcible measures in the context of a humanitarian emergency, and in the face of a deadlocked Security Council, is one that deserves urgent attention beyond the context of any single event. Progress toward answering this question has, however, been mired in a long-standing debate between those who believe that there is no credible international law justification for humanitarian intervention—and that the U.S. government should instead justify interventions like those taken at Kosovo and Shayrat as morally “legitimate”—and those who believe a legal justification can and should be put forward. I am very much in the latter camp and will use my time now to explain how I arrived at this position as a policy and as a legal matter by looking at three questions: the first question is whether legal justification is the direction that the United States should go in as a matter of policy. The second question is whether legal justification is credibly available as a matter of international law. The third question (which assumes the answer to the first and second is yes) is how to go about articulating and disseminating such a justification. Let me take these in order.

Problem-Solving Skills of the U.S. Workforce and Preparedness for Job Automation

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phyllis A. Cummins ◽  
Takashi Yamashita ◽  
Roberto J. Millar ◽  
Shalini Sahoo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Problem Solving Skills ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Advanced Technologies ◽  
International Assessment ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Skill Category

Automation and advanced technologies have increased the need for a better understanding of the skills necessary to have a globally competitive workforce. This study used data from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies to compare problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments among adults in South Korea, Germany, Singapore, Japan, Canada, Estonia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. Overall, the United States had the lowest scores among all countries, and in all countries scores declined with age. The United States had higher proportions of survey participants in the lowest skill category and lower proportions in the top-skill categories. The results of this study suggest changes in the U.S. educational and lifelong learning systems, and policies may be necessary to ensure all adults have the necessary skills in a competitive workforce.

Basic U. S. Sources For Current Research In International Law: An Elementary Vade-Mecum

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolf Sprudzs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
The U.S

Among the many old and new actors on the international stage of nations the United States is one of the most active and most important. The U.S. is a member of most existing intergovernmental organizations, participates in hundreds upon hundreds of international conferences and meetings every year and, in conducting her bilateral and multilateral relations with the other members of the community of nations, contributes very substantially to the development of contemporary international law. The Government of the United States has a policy of promptly informing the public about developments in its relations with other countries through a number of documentary publication, issued by the Department of State

MiFID II will recast Europe’s financial landscape

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Financial Instruments ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The World ◽  
October 17 ◽  
The Eu

Subject MiFID II implementation and compliance Significance The EU’s flagship investor protection reform -- the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) -- will come into force on January 3, 2018, Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU Commissioner responsible for financial stability, confirmed on October 17, saying that there would not be a further delay. Despite already having been given an extra year's extension, banks are struggling to comply in time because of the directive's complexity. Regulators, too, are behind in expanding their capacity to enforce it. Impacts Firms across the world that do any of their business within the EU will have to comply, not just those registered in the EU. All firms trading in financial instruments must comply but those where this is a small part of their business may be caught unawares. MiFID II will come into effect before the United Kingdom leaves the EU and is likely to be written into UK law post-Brexit. The United States is keen to deregulate, but US firms whose EU activity is not compliant will be punished, possibly harming US-EU relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document