Suchergebnisse

Although the European Economic Communities more frequently are taking what appear to be institutional positions on foreign policy and political issues of grave concern to the world community, it is not inappropriate for them to do so. The longterm goals of the Communities in part are political, as expressed in the Treaty of Rome. In the preamble to the Treaty the signatories state that they are "[d]etermined to lay the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples." Article 2 provides, in part, that one of the tasks of the Common Market is to promote "closer relations between the states belonging to it." One of the mechanisms by which these positions are formalized and articulated is through a shadow organization-an extra-Communities structure- referred to as European Political Cooperation (EPC). The importance of EPC in fostering the goals of the Communities is clearly stated in the foreign ministers' first report to the European Council on European Union. EPC is said to "[lead] step by step to the seeking of a common external policy, which will form a constituent part of European Union." Despite EPC's significant role in furthering Community goals, however, relatively little has been written about it. This article briefly traces the history of EPC, examines its structure, and proposes some reforms.

Concern over the dramatic competitive decline of the United States in the realm of free world exporting has led to the "introduction into the United States Senate of S. 144, the Export Trade Association Act of 1981, "[a] bill to encourage exports by facilitating the formation and operation of export trading companies, export trade associations, and the expansion of export trade services generally . . m This bill contains two parts. Title I, referred to as the Export Trading Company Act of 1981, is intended to encourage the formation and operation of export trading companies by allowing financial institutions, such as banks, to invest in them. Title 11,2 referred to as the Export Trade Association Act of 1981 (hereinafter the "Association Act") would provide an exception from antitrust liability for the export trading activities of trading companies and other entities. This Article will focus on Title II of S. 144, the Association Act, which would amend the provisions of the Webb-Pomerene Act of 19183 by rewriting it entirely. According to its sponsors, this new legislation clarifies the application of current antitrust laws to export trade associations and their activities. 4 The provisions of the Association Act will be examined in some detail and compared with those of the Webb-Pomerene Act. This analysis will also attempt to pinpoint some areas of potential ambiguity within the language of the amendments and will briefly address some of the implications of the proposed changes.

The aid provided by the federal government for the purpose of helping the development of the trans-Mississippi West was quite extensive and significant. Even though this assistance generally continues to be underestimated by historians, an attempt must be made to recognize the role the federal government played in assisting the development of approximately one-half of the area of the United States. This thesis presents one form of federal assistance, exploration, during the period from 1804 to 1845. Included are all of the official government explorers during this period--from Lewis and Clark to John C. Fremont. The conclusion drawn by this work is that the federal government did provide through these explorations valuable assistance to the development of the trans-Mississippi West by making known new and reliable information that was useful to many Americans who later determined the destiny of the United states in that vast area.

Although more than one hundred and fifty years old, the case vivifying the concept of sovereign immunity, The Schooner Exchange v. M cFaddon, is still repeatedly referred to in judicial opinions. Significantly, it is cited not for purposes of distinction or historical perspective, but rather, is employed as a present underpinning for sovereign immunity, even though the political and social circumstances of today differ considerably from those existing in 1812. Subsequent cases, however, while often justifying the conclusions reached by references to Marshall's discussion in The Schooner Exchange, have intertwined into the concept of sovereign immunity notions distinct from Chief Justice Marshall's rationale. Hence the present status of the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not the end product of, or even a stage in, the development of a freely evolving legal concept. Instead it is an amalgam of several distinct notions. As a prelude to a discussion of the concept of sovereign immunity it will be helpful to initially sketch certain distinctions so that the concept's historical development may be better understood. Two basic theories of sovereign immunity have struggled for ascendency in the cases and in the discourse of commentators. Traditionally, sovereign immunity has been regarded as either absolute or restrictive. The former notion is the simpler of the two. Under the absolute theory the sole inquiry is whether or not the entity being sued is a foreign sovereign. If so, the court will dismiss the action. The restrictive theory is a refinement of the absolute theory. Not only must the defendant be a foreign sovereign, but the sovereign must also be acting in its public capacity and not its private capacity. These two formulations represent the basic approaches to delineating the substantive content of the doctrine. It is also appropriate to note the fact that an entirely distinct question may arise. In what situations will a court be ousted of its jurisdiction to try a claim of sovereign immunity? The resolution of this question lies in a consideration of the constitutional ramifications of the interrelationship of the judiciary and the executive's control of foreign affairs. This Comment will trace the historical development of the two substantive theories of sovereign immunity, and analyze the case law that has developed. The second point of departure will be the interrelationship between the judiciary and the executive, with special emphasis on whether the executive can have any effect on the judicial formulation of the substantive doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The right of a nonresident alien to take real or personal property through testamentary bequest or intestate succession is regulated in this country by the laws of the states in which the property is located or the estate is probated. Many of the individual states of the Union demand that a potential foreign beneficiary establish, as a condition precedent to receipt of his inheritance share, compliance with an established statutory scheme. Often these regulatory measures require the existence of circumstances over which the alien, as an individual, has no, or at best minimal, control. The nonresident alien's ability to take and enjoy his inheritance is frequently contingent upon satisfactory proof of the conformity of his nation's legal system or, more difficultly, its political ideology and economic structure, to the statutory requirements. As written and applied by the courts the disparate requirements of these statutes impose critical obstacles to inheritance by nonresident aliens. Further, they serve to thwart the evident testamentary design of a decedent, and occasion severe problems in estate administration. An exposition and analysis of these various statutes will be attempted in this comment.