Showing papers on "Public international law published in 1984"

The Evolution of Refugee Status in International Law: 1920—1950

Abstract: A REFUGEE is usually thought of as a person compelled to flee his State of origin or residence due to political troubles, persecution, famine or natural disaster. The refugee is perceived as an involuntary migrant, a victim of circumstances which force him to seek sanctuary in a foreign country.' Since Rome's reception of the fleeing Barbarians, States have opened their doors to many divergent groups corresponding in a general way to this description of what it means to be a refugee.2 During a period of more than four centuries prior to 1920, there was little concern to delimit the scope of the refugee definition.3 Groups of refugees tended to be relatively small4 and many of them chose to migrate to the Americas and other newly-discovered lands." Moreover, the reign of liberalism with its individualistic orientation and respect for self-determination led most European powers to permit essentially uncontrolled and unrestricted immigration.6 This freedom of international movement accorded to persons broadly defined as refugees came to an abrupt halt after the First World War. The existence of massive groups of refugees who had been dislocated during the war coincided with the rise of political and economic nationalism throughout the Western world.7 Governments responded to this new social situation by adopting more guarded approaches to immigration in general and to refugee movements in particular.8 Out of

Contemporary International Relations: Frameworks for Understanding

Abstract: Contemporary International Relations. THE PARTICIPANTS' FRAMEWORK: ACTORS AND INTERESTS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. The State, Nationalism, and the National Interest. International Governmental Organizations: The United Nations and Other State-Created Organizations. Multinational Corporations. Nongovernmental Organizations, Individuals, and Other International Actors. THE SYSTEMIC FRAMEWORK: THE ACTORS IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM. Foreign Policy Decision-Making. The Rise and Fall of the East-West Conflict. The North-South Conflict: Can It Be Resolved? THE PERCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: VARYING VIEWS OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY. Perceptions and Policy in International Affairs. The United States' Outlook. Russia and the Other Former Soviet Republics. Europe, Japan, Canada, and Israel. The Chinese Outlook. Outlooks from the Developing World. THE INSTRUMENTAL FRAMEWORK: THE TOOLS OF POWER IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. Power. Views of Power. Economic Parameters of Power. Military Parameters of Power. Other Parameters of Power: International Law, Diplomacy, and Sociopolitical Elements of Power. International Political Economy. War, Peace, and Violence. Emerging Global Issues: The Environment, Drugs, Health, and Women's Rights. Conflicts of Values. THE FUTURISTIC FRAMEWORK: WHERE IS THE WORLD HEADING? Toward 2000 and Beyond.

Rethinking the Sources of International Law. By G. J. H. van Hoof. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1983. Pp. xiv, 322. Index. Dfl. 115; $46.

Abstract: That much said, Dr. G. H. J. van Hoof's book is a long-winded and meandering essay that reaches simplistic conclusions. There is very little here that justifies the title \"rethinking.\" The author builds his thesis about sources on the bedrock of consent. Several untoward consequences follow: the author has to abandon the generally accepted distinction between general custom and special custom, he has to allow that \"international law does not entail the same rights and duties for all its subjects\" (p. 97), and he must argue that new states are not bound by preexisting rules of international law until they have accepted specific rules. He also fails to see the interaction between opinio juris and usage, finding the latter superfluous if one begins with opinio juris (but not specifying how one can begin with just opinio juris) (p. 98). While conceding that rules in treaties can give rise to rules of customary law, van Hoof's failure to distinguish between general and special custom leads to a fundamental misreading of the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. [FN1] In general, he disparages the jurisprudence of the World Court (p. 87 n.320) and thus misses an opportunity to analyze and learn from its leading cases.

International Incidents: Introduction to a New Genre in the Study of International Law

Abstract: The scene is Beijing. You are an international political adviser to the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The news dominating the cable traffic is that Argentina has invaded the Falkland Islands.' Even though the invasion is on the other side of the planet, in a region in which the PRC is not directly involved, you will follow the events there with great interest for the next several weeks. Some of your colleagues will be concerned about the military dimensions of the conflict, for example, problems encountered in launching am-

Peacetime Unilateral Remedies: An Analysis of Countermeasures

Abstract: Contents: Table of Cases; Table of Abbreviations; Introduction. Part I -- The Legal Concept of Countermeasures: Introduction; Peacetime Unilateral Remedies; Retorsion; Reciprocity; Suspension and Termination of a Treaty; Reprisals. The Specificity of Countermeasures Purposes of Peacetime Unilateral Remedies Countermeasures and Coercion. Part II -- The Legal Framework of Countermeasures: Introduction; Substance of Countermeasures Target Rules; Target States; Conditions of Countermeasures; Legal Capacity; Procedural Questions; Substantive Condition; Conclusion; Appendix; Bibliography; Index.

International law and the developing countries : confrontation or cooperation?

Abstract: General Introduction. Outline. Austria: H. Schaffer. Belgium: F. Delperee. Czech Republic: J. Filip. Estonia: Uibopuu. Finland: M. Scheinin. France: L. Favoreu, T. Renoux, A. Weber. Greece: W. Skouris. Hungary: A. Adam, P. Paczolay. Ireland: J. Casey. Italy: M. Luciani, J. Luther. Latvia: E. Levits. Lithuania: D. Jociene. Netherlands: D. Schaffmeister. Poland: L. Garlicki. Portugal: J. Miranda. Slovenia: M. Pavcnik, J. Sinkovec, A. Novak. Spain: F. Rubio Llorente. Sweden: T. Bjerken, J. Nergelius. Switzerland: W. Kalin. United Kingdom: J. Wright. USA: W. Brugger, E. Eberle, D. Kommers. ECJ: I. Pernice, M. Zuleeg. ECHR: H.G. Schermers.

Public International Law and the Conflict of Laws: The European Response to the United States Export Administration Regulations

Abstract: IN the summer of 1982 the European Communities, and their Member States, reacted vigorously to attempts by the United States to impose an embargo on the supply by certain European companies of goods destined for use in the construction of the Soviet gas pipeline. The European States objected to the claimed extraterritorial ambit of the American legislation and to its retroactive effect in prohibiting the performance of contractual obligations lawfully entered into before the embargo was imposed. The objections were spelled out in unusual detail in the European Communities' "Comments on the Amendments of 22 June 1982 to the Export Administration Regulations", communicated to the US Department of State on 12 August 1982.1 They were followed by an aide-memoire on the same matter on 14 March 1983.2 Those documents-particularly the first-are of great significance both politically, because of the importance of the EEC as a trading partner and ally of the United States, and legally, because of the detail in which the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction is addressed. This article does not attempt to discuss the whole issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It concentrates upon some of the novel issues raised by the EC Comments, and particularly upon the question of the legal effect of "submission clauses" included in contracts between the American sellers and European buyers (in both cases, private companies) of American technology, in which the buyers agreed to comply with the US export regulations in their use of the technology. Those clauses give rise to fundamental questions concerning the relationship between public and private international law. In order to set the Comments in context, they and their background are described in the first part of this article. The second, and main, part discusses the issues arising from the use of submission clauses; and the

Protection of Children in International Humanitarian Law

Abstract: The legal protection of children was introduced into international humanitarian law after the Second World War. Experience during that conflict had, in fact, pointed to the urgent need to draw up an instrument of public international law for protecting civilian population in wartime. The results of the ICRC's efforts in this field led to the adoption of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. From that time on, children, as members of the civilian population, were entitled to benefit from the application of that Convention. Moreover, the first international humanitarian law regulations concerning armed conflicts not of an international character, contained in article 3, common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, were drawn up at the 1949 Diplomatic Conference. Here again, children were protected, in the same way as all “persons taking no active part in the hostilities”.

The International Court of Justice and the United Nations

Abstract: At the end of the second decade of its activity the International Court of Justice finds itself in a serious crisis. The Judgment of the Court in the South West Africa cases (18 July 1966), and the reaction thereto on the part of the international community, are not the only causes of this predicament, although it would be idle to pretend that they have not powerfully contributed to it. Even before 1966 statesmen and scholars were concerned about stagnation in the development of international adjudication of which the Court was to be the principal instrument. Lack of confidence in the composition of the Court and the law which it applied was commonly identified as a proximate cause of this situation. However, these factors were but outward manifestations of yet deeper doubts—doubts regarding the role which international adjudication could and should play in the pattern of the international relations which has evolved since the end of World War II, and particularly following the rapid achievements of decolonization, and the consequent doubling of the membership of the United Nations. The attitudes of States were seen to be determined by the prevailing international tensions, by the emergent system of international politics characterized as bipolar, the technological developments which led to reappraisal of the requirements of national security, and the disparity between developed and developing nations; these are some of the more remote factors which left their imprint on the behaviour of States.

Insuring unilaterally licensed deep seabed mining operations against adverse rulings by the international court of justice: An assessment of the risk

Abstract: With the possibility of the coming into effect of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea recently concluded at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the refusal of the United States to sign that treaty, and the enactment in the United States of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, the stage is set for territorial disputes on the deep seabed. United States entities contemplating mining on the deep seabed may well consider the security of their positions. A ruling by the International Court of Justice that the unilateral licensing of deep seabed mining is unlawful under international law and a political decision by the United States to comply with that decision would mean a tremendous increase in operating costs for miners suddenly subject to international rather than domestic regulations. This paper will explore the likelihood of this scenario occurring and the possibility of obtaining insurance to protect against the consequences.

International Law: An Introduction

Abstract: Dr. Ruddy has successfully undertaken the herculean task of updating Professor Deak's original 20-volume work, which spans American jurisprudence from 1783 to 1968. Conceived as the American analogue to Professor Parry's British International Law Cases, and published in anticipation of the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the independence of the United States, this work sets out to collect and digest the decisions of that branch of the U.S. Government that has contributed the most to the growth of international law through its interpretation and application of that law. The collection consists of decisions of various courts of law, including federal and state courts, the Court of Claims, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. Generally, decisions of regulatory agencies are not included. Cases are usually arranged in chronological order, with U.S. Supreme Court decisions followed by those of lower federal courts and state court decisions. Decisions are printed only at one place, based upon the editor's perception as to the primary focus of the court. Ruddy, long associated with Parry, is well suited to continue the task commenced by Deak. A distinguished scholar, author and public servant, Ruddy brings a lifetime of scholarly and practical experience to the exercise. He has followed the organization of Deak's original volumes, with only a few noteworthy differences. The main difference is that in order to increase the usefulness of the cases, they are cited in their entirety. To enhance accessibility, each volume has a table of contents and a table of cases. Cases are grouped according to the following major headings: "International Law in General," "Control of Resources," "Jurisdiction," "Diplomatic and Consular Intercourse," "Treaties" and "Control of Persons." Ruddy has done the international legal community a great service by making the continuing international law opinions of the courts of this country accessible in a single collection to scholars here and abroad. He deserves the legal community's heartfelt appreciation for the manner in which he has carried out this worthwhile endeavor.

Perspectives on the Jurisprudence of International Trade

Abstract: I tackle a problem which I believe concerns all our disciplines; the problem of the legal processes involved in international trade regulation, and its various costs and benefits. Much of what I say could be applied to international processes, obligations, and institutions such as the GATT or OECD, but for reasons of time and space I will generally confine myself to the domestic U.S. laws and procedures concerning imports.' During the post-World War II period, there have been two parallel but clear trends in the system of United States regulation for imports. The first has been for the overall dramatic reduction in the level of tariffs since 1945, after the negotiation of the GATT, and the seven tariff and trade negotiating rounds under the auspices of GATT. The second trend has been a gradually accelerating recourse to measures for restraining imports other than normal tariffs, including measures entitled "antidumping duties" and "countervailing duties." This trend has particularly accelerated since 1962, and it is instructive to examine the major trade acts of 1962, 1974, and 1979 (the latter being the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, which implemented the results of the Tokyo Round Multilateral Trade Negotiations). The clear trend manifested in those statutes is towards a greater "legalization" or "judicialization" of the system. The 1974 act greatly reduced administrative discretion in the application of certain regulatory principles, particularly countervailing duties. It did this by imposing time limits, and in some cases embellishing the requirements for public hearings and other procedures to allow citizen access to the process. The 1979 act went even further in this regard, and also took some major steps in expanding the scope for judicial review of administrative actions. Consequently, as of this writing in 1983, the United States has a remarkably elaborate governmental system for the regulation of imports, including approximately a dozen different formal types of procedures or processes, many of which have explicit statutory procedural requirements calling for public hearings, judicial review, citizen complaint, and much reduced discretion for Executive Branch officials handling these matters. (See my 1977 book.) These include proceedings for escape clause, antidumping, countervailing duty, ? 337 unfair trade actions, ? 301 complaints against foreign government actions, etc. It is said that the U.S. legalistic system of regulating trade is costly, is itself a " non-tariff barrier" to trade, and lends itself to manipulative use by special domestic interests. Some of this may be true, but a systematic appraisal must examine at least three questions. 1) What are the real costs of the system? 2) What are the benefits of the system? 3) What alternatives to the system exist or are feasible, and what are their costs and benefits? I will therefore discuss those three questions, along with some policy and historical matters.