Professors Cheatham and Maier raise the question, "What are the sources of the law applied in private international cases?" The authors consider this question under two main headings. The first deals with the "authoritative sources" of private international law applied in United States courts. It considers the question, Where, within the complex governmental structure of the United States, does power over private international matters rest?" Several possible sources are considered: public international law, state law, and federal law, and within federal law, the major components: international agreements, legislation, federal common law and executive law. The second part of the article deals briefly with the "fundamental sources" of private international law. Here, the authors seek to identify those basic policies which guide a law-making body in laying down and developing principles of private international law. In the process, they suggest a number of "threats" to the development of effective private international rules.
This thesis deals with the international law position of those entities which may be said to have status in relation to the territory known as Rhodesia (or Southern Rhodesia, if one is to give it its original name). These entities are the State of Rhodesia, the Government of Rhodesia, the People of Rhodesia and the United Kingdom which claims to exercise sovereignty over the territory of Rhodesia. Since the ambit of the thesis concerns the international law position of these entities it follows that other international law problems relating to Rhodesia, which concern third states and international organizations, fall outside its scope. These latter problems relate to obligations of third states and competences of international organizations to take action in the Rhodesian situation and do not relate to the status of Rhodesia itself. This thesis therefore does not deal with such matters as the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations and the obligations o f member states to participate in them. However, where obligations of third states are inextricably connected with the status of the territory itself, it is necessary to treat them. Thus the "duty not to recognize" Rhodesia owed by third states received full treatment in all its various facets for recognition is a concept which is of cardinal importance in considering status. For the purposes of exposition the thesis is divided into two main parts, a historical part and a contemporary part.
An American general who formerly headed the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine stated recently: "The American mind is being manipulated as far as Palestine is concerned." He was referring to Zionist manipulations. My own experiences with the Zionist Organization of America, which refused to answer any of my requests for varied information, confirm the general's charge. My own acquaintance with the Palestine problem has revealed that the equities involved in the area have been buried under a mass of distortion, misinformation and insidious propaganda which have misrepresented the actual facts and veiled the historical and legal truth to the extent that the Palestinian victims are made to appear as being the wrongdoers and the Zionist wrongdoers as the victims. The present problem in Palestine is the derivative of an extraordinary accumulation of injustices, illegalities and violations by Zionism of many decencies: violations of international law, violations of League of Nations and United Nations provisions, violations of fundamental human rights. For more than three-quarters of a century there has been interminable conflict between the indigenous Palestinian Arab people and alien-imported Zionist ideology which maintains that Palestine belongs to "the Jews." On the other hand, there is the international law perspective which rejects the Zionist ideological claim and its form of extralegal logic. It may be stated with historical assurance that the great powers and organized international Zionism have used power politics, including a large measure of military methods, to deal with the problems of Palestine. From this accurate premise it may be erroneously deduced that international law has been a failure in the Palestine question. It would be far more accurate to conclude that international law has not even been applied in the Zionist-Palestinian issue. A careful legal and historical analysis demonstrates beyond doubt that the Balfour Declaration is invalid under the criteria of modern international law; it should also be recalled that the instruments of Zionist discrimination and oppression of the Palestinian people in Palestine-Israel have not been established in a day or even as short a period of time as a half century, Zionist beginnings, at the latest, were at the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897. From there Zionism has proceeded extralegally one step at a time in a carefully planned program utilizing political, military and propaganda instruments, culminating in the illegal military fait accompli of 1948 when "the Jewish State" of Israel was installed by organized Zionism. The native Arab people were ruthlessly driven out as part of an Israeli master-plan to rid Palestine of its Arab people in order to build an exclusivist "Jewish" state, and the few Arabs who remained in "Israel" have been exploited and repressed by the Israeli Zionist establishment. Any objective student of the Middle East will reach these conclusions if he analyzes Zionist history and its consistent violations of international legal principles and norms. Moreover, without an understanding of these causative factors of the Palestine problem, it is important to recognize that the plight of the Palestinian people will continue to be ignorantly ignored. What must be axiomatically recognized is that the violent uprooting of the Palestinians from their native land by international Zionist Jewry and their suppliants can have no legal or moral justification. Not only is it a violation of international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter, it also constitutes an unparalleled violation of elementary principles of humanity and civilization. This, the writer has disclosed in his analysis of the Balfour Declaration in the context of international law.
A strategy of global welfare, realized through global co-operation, would decrease the opportunity of exploiting economic assistance as a political medium in the Cold War. It has proved to be little helpful to try to prevent interventionary practices by means of solemn Declarations forbidding political and military intervention; it might be much more effective to take first practical measuÍes impeding aranoníc intervention. When social and economic conditions in the developing countries have become such that they contribute to stability and peace and thus remove a major opportunity for interventionary practices in general, the legal discussion on political and military intervention might become more relevant and useful. . Zie: Summary
Any discussion of terrorism whether it affects the inlterests of a single country or those of more than one immediately involves problems of definition. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, terrorism is defined as "1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-1794; the system of the 'Terror'; 2. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized." The English statute passed in connection with the 'troubles' in Ireland - Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1978' - is only slightly more helpful, for it defines terrorism as "the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear." The primary Dictionary definition reflects the political atmosphere of the time of its compilation and the views of those living in a democratic state, for in the nineteenth century the principal concern of libertarians was condemnation of authoritarian regimes and their denial of human dignity. As concerns terrorist acts by individuals acting on their own or on behalf of some political movement, the general tendency was to regard those who were seelcing to overthrow autocratic regimes as political heroes, and those whose targets were friendly or non-authoritarian governments as anarchists.
Since all marine fisheries are either shared or shareable and constitute a renewable resource, broad policy problems of fishery use, both by "have" and "have not" fishing states, always have an international aspect and involve considerations of both development and conservation. In few areas of international law is the challenge to our reason and imagination so acute; and seldom do jurists so obviously require the services of the natural sciences. Yet fishery science, now engaging a small but growing number of specialists from biology and related disciplines, is still unable to provide an adequate factual basis for the sophisticated articulation of truly rational fishery policies. It may be many decades before sufficient reliable data has been gathered through scientific investigation of the world's marine resources to permit the formulation of general behavioral models for all marketable species in all commercially exploitable areas. On the other hand, the dynamics of particular fish populations have become fairly familiar over the years in certain closely studied areas, facilitating rough calculations of the effects of fishing on a resource. But even in highly developed fisheries where substantial exploitation has been conducted under scientific scrutiny, those hypotheses which have won critical acceptance from biologists and adoption by administrators usually rest on untested or untestable assumptions and minimal data regarding the complex relationships between biotic and abiotic factors in the shifting sea. Moreover, even the most rational program of conservation, inspired by sophisticated scientific studies, remains vulnerable to the different approach of economists; and even with a theoretical reconciliation between these disciplines, the management of human responses is possible only through the practice of political and diplomatic arts.
Since all marine fisheries are either shared or shareable and constitute a renewable resource, broad policy problems of fishery use, both by "have" and "have not" fishing states, always have an international aspect and involve considerations of both development and conservation. In few areas of international law is the challenge to our reason and imagination so acute; and seldom do jurists so obviously require the services of the natural sciences. Yet fishery science, now engaging a small but growing number of specialists from biology and related disciplines, is still unable to provide an adequate factual basis for the sophisticated articulation of truly rational fishery policies. It may be many decades before sufficient reliable data has been gathered through scientific investigation of the world's marine resources to permit the formulation of general behavioral models for all marketable species in all commercially exploitable areas. On the other hand, the dynamics of particular fish populations have become fairly familiar over the years in certain closely studied areas, facilitating rough calculations of the effects of fishing on a resource. But even in highly developed fisheries where substantial exploitation has been conducted under scientific scrutiny, those hypotheses which have won critical acceptance from biologists and adoption by administrators usually rest on untested or untestable assumptions and minimal data regarding the complex relationships between biotic and abiotic factors in the shifting sea. Moreover, even the most rational program of conservation, inspired by sophisticated scientific studies, remains vulnerable to the different approach of economists; and even with a theoretical reconciliation between these disciplines, the management of human responses is possible only through the practice of political and diplomatic arts.
Prepared by: Arthur W. Rovine, 1973-1974; Eleanor C. McDowell, 1975-1976; John A. Boyd, 1977; Marian L. Nash, 1978- ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 1973-1980. 1 v.
"#G008004817." ; "January, 1982." ; Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche. ; "Federal grant from the Department of Education, Citizen Education for Cultural Understanding Program, authorized under section 603 of Title IV of the National Defense Act as amended." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.
On September 20, 1870, troops of the King of Italy, acting in defiance of an agreement with France whereby Italy pledged to France not to attack what was left of the Pope's territory - the Patrimony of St. Peter - marched on Rome, and the city's walls and gates were battered by cannon. Pius IX gave the order to capitulate and Italy was at last united. But the refusal of the Pope to admit the legitimacy of the fait accompli, together with the conflicting opinions of a multitude of writers on International Law and the Roman Question, and the unique position of the Supreme Pontiff, have given rise - in academic circles, if not in practice, - to considerable confusion as to the status of the Holy See in International Law. ; peer-reviewed
The traditional theories of recognition do not properly maintain the essential distinction between state and government. The only proper way to maintain this distinction is by laying down verifiable criteria for statehood, and treating the recognition of governments as purely discretionary. A state must have come into existence before the question of recognition of a particular government can arise. International personality is a consequence of statehood, not of recognition; if a state can objectively come into existence, so can international personality, and the grant or withdrawal of recognition cannot affect that personality. The degree of recognition conferred by the United Kingdom and other countries on Rhodesia on various occasions was limited in scope, purpose, and time, and was not indicative of any opinion that the Smith government or the Smith/Muzorewa government was the legitimate government of Rhodesia; nor did such qualified recognition demonstrate any intention to have normal relations with Rhodesia. It would seem proper to view this as a question of recognition of a de facto governing authority. Rhodesia must, therefore, be regarded as a state with international legal personality. As such, it is bound by international law, like any other state, and is subject to the usual range of penal sanctions available to the international community to counter any breach of international law.
In December 1984 poisonous gas leaked out from the Bopal plant in India. Some 1700 people were killed and more than 200.000 people injured. The accident led to criminal proceedings under Indian law. In parallel securities suits and stockholders derivative suits were initiated in USA. Of major concern were the protracted public liability trials. Ambulance chasers have had them referred to USA. Even the Indian government filed suit in the USA claiming that due the backlog of Indian cases, the magnitude of damages in the US and the American contingency system the liability claims were better handled by the US courts. The article presents the early phases of the different disputes discussing forum issues, applicable law and remedy matters likely to come to the forefront.
Although historically legal interest in human rights has been the special province of scholars, recent worldwide economic realignment has educated the public to global interdependency, vindicating those who foresaw a nexus between human rights and the maintenance of world order. "[A]n interdependent global community cannot sustain itself. .if the coin of common exchange is genocide and discrimination." A pragmatic understanding of the relationship between the maintenance of world order and the protection of human rights suggests that tolerance and fulfillment of the world expectation of human rights may not be a goal that can be universally achieved. It is, however, an ideal to be sought after, requiring definition of human rights and creation of procedural safeguards for adjudicating and enforcing violations of those rights. The fulfillment of human rights must occur in a world of conflicting national interests and divergent philosophical and cultural biases. The political issues of national sovereignty and conflicting systems are absorbed into the single juridical issue of human rights when the global "elites" attempt to stabilize their territories at "tolerable levels of oppression." This "tolerable level of oppression" can be accorded a legal definition, thereby introducing procedural safeguards into political order, reducing the potential for inhumane treatment. Therefore, the scope of this article will be to provide an international human rights framework for the prospective prevention of torture and all other forms of cruel and unusual punishment which might apply to all nations.
Despite the technological and political intricacies that earmark the current international economic system, the transnational boycott remains a prominent technique of international economic coercion. The transnational boycott can be described as a coercive quasi-conspiratorial combination effort by one state to prevent another state from transacting commercial business. Threats or intimidation may be directed at the target state's customers to induce them to withhold or withdraw their patronage. While the ends and means of transnational boycotts may seem clear, their legal status appears to be open to conjecture. This situation can be attributed in no small part to the more sophisticated and manipulative methods currently available for effecting and maintaining modern boycotts. This Article first seeks to examine critically the historical evolution and policy underpinnings of the transnational boycott and the political and economic ramifications that stem from a state's use of a boycott strategy. Second, this Article attempts to determine more precisely the international legal status of the transnational boycott as a deliberate instrument of a state's foreign policy. The intent of this analysis is to provide a better understanding of the political rationales of governments that resort to boycott strategies, the resultant economic implications, and the international legal parameters for transnational boycotts.
