Prior to 1903, Canada did not effectively exercise jurisdiction over its Arctic territories, where men of various nationalities carried out whaling, hunting, trading and mining without any restriction. The Dominion Government Expedition of 1903-04 on board the Neptune constituted the first significant step towards the assertion of Canadian authority in the eastern Arctic, particularly in Hudson Bay. Its members established a police post, implemented customs procedures, prohibited trade in the hides of musk-ox (an endangered species), and informed the Eskimos that Edward VII was their king. In addition to demonstrating the Dominion Government's authority over its Arctic territories, the Neptune Expedition helped to promote the decline of the whaling industry, which for decades had provided the economic basis of Eskimo life in certain regions.
Oliphant, the first attempt in recent case law to deal directly with the issue of tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, represents an acceptance of the theory that tribal sovereignty is diminished only to the extent that it is expressly limited by the federal government. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, in the absence of any express limitations on tribal power, the original criminal jurisdiction of the tribe remains undiminished. After establishing this foundational principle, the court proceeded to analyze the alleged limitations on tribal jurisdiction. First, the court found no treaty purporting to limit the tribe's criminal jurisdiction. Second, the federal jurisdictional statute was found to contain no claim of exclusivity. Third, the court construed the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act as limiting but not extinguishing tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Fourth, state jurisdiction under Public Law 280 was found to have been effectively retroceded. Finally, the court found that tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians conformed with the federal policy of encouraging Indian self-government.
This note has four main objectives: (1) to evaluate the Court's reliance upon the structures and relationships established by the Constitution to support an implied limitation upon congressional power; (2) to consider whether the rationale behind intergovernmental tax immunities should be extended to commerce clause legislation; (3) to ascertain when a state sovereignty limitation is not appropriate; and (4) to identify some theoretical and practical implications National League may have for the future of the federal system. The primary conclusion reached is that the continued existence of the federal system requires the imposition of a state sovereignty limitation on all exercises of congressional power which unnecessarily interfere with the states' constitutionally guaranteed autonomy. It is further concluded, however, that in certain cases it is consistent with the structure of the federal system that the states' implied immunity from congressional control yield to the exigencies of the Union. When the national interest clearly compels state compliance with federal standards, and when the burden imposed is not excessive, then a state sovereignty limitation is not appropriate.
The recent controversy over the establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied territory has resurrected a thirty year dispute over territorial sovereignty in the area referred to before 1948 as Palestine. This note will attempt to analyze the conflicting legal claims to Palestine under a standard likely to be applied by an international judicial tribunal operating in conjunction with or under the auspices of the International Court of Justice. The analysis will be concerned not with the political or quasi-legal claims of the respective parties, examples of which are Israeli historical claims based upon decades of alleged persecution and Arab claims of right to self-determination, but with the respective parties' claims of legal title to Palestine. Furthermore, the analysis will be limited to Palestine as it was demarcated by the United Nations in 1947, excluding discussion of the conflicting Arab and Israeli claims to other sensitive areas such as the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Straits of Tiran, Jerusalem, and Sinai.
Over the years, the policy of the federal government toward American Indians has vacillated between attempts to assimilate them into American society on the one hand and efforts to preserve their independence and cultural identity on the other. Like a pendulum, this policy, as expressed in congressional legislation, has swung from efforts in 1887 to break up the reservations by transferring tribal lands to individual Indians in fee, to the halting in 1934 of further such alienation, and then back again since the 1950s to renewed efforts to end tribal existence. The legal theories and canons of construction generated by a century and a half of judicial attempts to interpret and accommodate these inconsistent and conflicting federal policies collide on the question of a state's jurisdiction to tax Indians. The conflict is reflected in three opinions delivered by the United States Supreme Court last term. In McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, Arizona attempted to apply its personal income tax to a full-blooded member of the Navajo tribe whose entire income was derived from activities on the reservation where she lived and worked. The Court held that the federal government had preempted this sphere of taxation and struck down application of the personal income tax; furthermore, since the state had failed to comply with relevant federal statutes, it lacked jurisdiction over the Indians it sought to tax. In Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, the tribe constructed and operated ski resort facilities on off-reservation property leased by a tribal corporation from the United States Forest Service. New Mexico attempted to apply a gross receipts tax to the facilities and a use tax to materials purchased out of state for construction of the ski lifts. The Court upheld the gross receipts tax because of the off-reservation situs of the resort; it struck down application of the use tax to materials used to construct permanent improvements on the land, however, as inconsistent with the tribe's statutory exemption from ...
MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE PROVISIONAL IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO THE TREATY OF EXTRADITION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED KINGDOM--In the Matter of the Requested Extradition of Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty, Crim. Misc. No. 83-1(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 1984). THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT PERMITS THE DEPORTATION OF AN ALIEN WHEN THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE ESTABLISHES BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE ALIEN, UNDER THE AEGIS OF NAZI GERMANY, PERSONALLY AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE PERSECUTION OF INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS--Laipenieks v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, No. 83-7711, slip op. at 62 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 1985). AN AIRLINE CANNOT INVOKE THE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS OF THE WARSAW CONVENTION WHEN ITS TICKETS FAIL TO GIVE ADEQUATE WARNING OF THE LIMITATIONS--In re Air Crash Disaster at Warsaw, Poland, on March 14, 1980, 748 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1984). UNITED STATES CITIZEN IN FOREIGN PRISON CANNOT COMPEL THE TESTIMONY OF A CONSULAR OFFICIAL--Flynn v. Shultz, 748 F.2d1186 (7th Cir. 1984). FOREIGN COUNTRY EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT IS INAPPLICABLE IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION ARISING IN ANTARCTICA--Beattie v. United States, No. 84-5413 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 31,1984). EXTRATERRITORIAL NATURE OF SALVADORAN RELOCATION ORDER TO SALVADORAN AIRLINE PRECLUDES ACT OF STATE DEFENSE TO CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE ORDER--Airline Pilots Assoc. v. TACA International Airlines, 748 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1984). FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT--CHILEAN NATIONAL AIRLINE NOT SUBJECT TO EXECUTION AGAINST PROPERTY TO SATISFY A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE TRANSPORTATION OF ASSASSINS DOES NOT OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF SEPARATENESS AND IS NOT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY--Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 748 F.2d790 (2d Cir. 1984). BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL COMITY AND FAIRNESS--UNITED STATES COURTS MAY DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION A CASE ALLEGING ILLEGAL ANTITRUST BEHAVIOR ABROAD, Timberlane Lumber ...
The presumptuous intention of this otherwise modest little piece is to provide a defense of the notion of theocracy and a constructive theological account of its significance for the late twentieth century. I will look first—and all too briefly—at some relevant biblical materials. It will then be necessary to distinguish the idea of theocracy from a number of political positions sometimes mistakenly judged to be implicit in theocracy. Finally, I will undertake to describe the normative significance of the idea of theocracy for the pluralistic world in which we live.
This essay makes some comparative observations on Latin American integration from a European point of view and a political-scientific perspective, exposing the reflections in the form of six theses, namely: The levels, institutions, organizations, goals, have more weak historical roots and are more uneven in Latin America than in Europe; The essential weakness of Latin American integration is the lack of a broad active population ready for integration; The integration institutions of Latin America fulfill important functions of legitimation and not simply of compensation, but they can be replaced and substituted in their concrete refinement; Integration on both sides of the Atlantic is only possible through a certain degree of renunciation of sovereignty; Both European and Latin American integration have shown that integrationist progress requires sensitive demonstrations and; From the European point of view, Latin America should not squander its identity gains in the north-south dialogue. ; En este ensayo se realizan algunas observaciones comparativas sobre la integración latinoamericana desde un punto de vista europeo y una perspectiva político-científica, exponiendo las reflexiones en forma de seis tesis, a saber: Los niveles, instituciones, organizaciones, metas, tienen un arraigo histórico más débil y desigual en América Latina que en Europa; La debilidad esencial de la integración Latinoamericana es la falta de una población activa amplia dispuesta a la integración; Las instituciones de integración de América Latina cumplen importantes funciones de legitimación y no simplemente de compensación, mas se pueden reemplazar y sustituir en su afinamiento concreto; La integración a ambos lados del Atlántico solo es posible a través de cierto grado de renunciamiento a la soberanía; Tanto la integración europea como la latinoamericana han demostrado que los progresos integracionistas requieren de manifestaciones sensibles y; Desde el punto de vista europeo, Latinoamérica no debe farrearse sus ganancias de identidad ...
Given its strategic interest in the Canal, it might well be asked why the United States would sign a Treaty which does not give an unambiguous right of intervention. Under the Treaty, the United States has at best only a weak legal justification for intervention, which will be useful in domestic politics should the popular opposition to "giving the Canal away" become critical, but which will be much less convincing elsewhere. World opinion is suspicious of the reliance of any great power on intervention, regardless of the legal rationale. The justification will be least persuasive in Latin America where there is deep resentment against the United States for past intervention in the area. On the other hand, this resentment is another reason the United States did not secure an unambiguous right to intervene--after the 1964 riots and the 1967 coup, no Panamanian leader could have agreed to such a provision. A political realist would suggest that the United States will probably take whatever action it deems necessary for national security regardless of legal ramifications, hence the failure to secure the right to intervene should not prevent ratification if the Treaty serves other national interests. Indeed, there are good foreign policy reasons for ratifying it. In view of the mounting popular resentment in Panama over the United States presence in the isthmus, it may be wise for the United States to withdraw gradually. The Treaties allow the United States to do so without losing face. Therefore, good diplomacy may be reason enough for the United States to agree to terms which severely restrict its legal rights. If the United States can avoid possible military entanglement in Panama and begin to clear the way, after years of ill will, for a genuine "new relationship," the new Treaties should be ratified.
Using Washington as a model for discussion this comment explores the doctrines which have limited the application of the flexible principles of popular sovereignty to the problems presented in the calling of a Constitutional Convention. The author concludes: that the people of the state of Washington can call such a convention by the use of the popular initiative; that earlier notions that changes in state governmental structure could only be accomplished by strict conformity to the procedures in the existing constitution have been supplanted by the resurgence of the doctrines of popular sovereignty; and that the broad theoretical underpinnings for popular sovereignty decry the soundness of the application of any maxims of interpretation which would deny the people, acting through the initiative, the power to call a Constitutional Convention.
In 1895 the Secretary of the Geographical Section of the Committee for Historical Works, Dr. Ernest-Theodore Hamy, published a detailed description of a highly unusual naval chart, undated but probably drawn around A.D. 1630. This valuable document, the property of a British collector, showed "without question, Spitsbergen, the name places being partly in French while, in the middle of the chart, is a coat of arms showing the fleur-de-lys in the style of Louis XIII. The map is entitled La France Artique (sic)!" . To try to establish the exact date or provenance of this chart is beyond the scope of this paper. . The essential importance of this chart is its spectacular proof of a continuous French presence in the waters and along the coasts of Spitsbergen, throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century.
Theocracy is not dead. Was there ever really any doubt that the idea had passed away? Judaic-Christian thought ever since the times of the Old Testament has always confessed the sovereignty of God over all of life. Christians since the time of Paul, on through Augustine and particularly in John Calvin, have continued this emphasis on the sovereignty of God. This has been a distinctive point of Reformed thinking ever since Calvin as well. Although Reformed confessions have for hundreds of years held to the idea of theocracy, the idea has not been a reality in contemporary societies because of the theory of the separation of church and state. As a result, the two have had little to do with each other and society has been divided into the categories of "sacred" and "secular." To do this is to say that the church is the only place where religion can speak, but if Christ is Lord, he is Lord of the state too. This is the doctrine that Calvin espoused in Geneva and it was the basis of the reformational changes that took place there. Calvin believed that all things - the church, the state, society, and economics- must be reformed according to the Word of God.
When I take up the Nuremberg cases in my class in International Law, I find it quite difficult to convey to the students how radical those proceedings appeared to be in 1947. At that time, the contention that there should be individual accountability under international law seemed to constitute an unfounded and dangerous precedent. How could political leaders be made personally responsible for acts of state such as instituting a war (even an "aggressive" war) or engaging in wholly internal policies (the "final solution" against Jews and other minorities of their own citizens)? Indeed, the Nuremberg result seemed somewhat unprincipled to my teachers when I went to law school in the late 1950's. But today's students, an entirely new generation, find the Nuremberg decisions unremarkable. Of course, they say, the Nazi leaders were criminally guilty of mass murder and should not have been able to hide behind the instrumentality of the state or government.
The importance of theocratic ideas in our times is too apparent to require justification here before the question can be raised about the relationship between Christian origins and theocratic ideology. The resurgence of theocracy as a form of social order within, for example, the Islamic revolution, Zionism, and certain Liberation theologies, makes it an issue of special concern to Christians everywhere. Accordingly, it is only natural to want to know what Jesus had to say on the subject, if anything, and to determine how it may be relevant for the Church today.
