The Trade Agreement Act in Court and in Congress

1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 498-507
Author(s):  
John Day Larkin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South America ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Sharp Line ◽  
First Case ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
Discretionary Powers

“Practically every volume of the United States Statutes contains one or more acts or joint resolutions of Congress authorizing action by the President in respect of subjects affecting foreign relations, which either leave the exercise of the power to his unrestricted judgment, or provide a standard far more general than that which has always been considered requisite with regard to domestic affairs.” Thus did Mr. Justice Sutherland summarize the legal precedents for the President's actions in imposing an embargo on arms shipments to certain belligerent countries in South America, after Congress had delegated to him discretionary authority in such matters. This is more than a succinct historical summary. It is the first case in which the dicta of the Court has made clear that sharp line of distinction between the Chief Executive's discretionary powers in foreign affairs and those in internal matters.

scholarly journals Understanding Curtiss-Wright

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 653-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward A. Purcell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Striking Feature

The most striking feature of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. is its language asserting an independent and exclusive executive foreign affairs power. As “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of foreign relations,” the Court declared, the executive holds “very delicate, plenary and exclusive power” that “does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.” From the day the case was decided, it has stood as a preeminent authority for those who would magnify the constitutional role of the president by proclaiming the independent and unchecked nature of the executive's foreign affairs power.

I. Organizing the Government for Participation in World Affairs

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 913-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter H. C. Laves ◽  
Francis O. Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Public Servants ◽  
Authoritarian State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Post War

Looking at the post-war period, it seems obvious that the government of the United States will give more attention to foreign affairs than it has in any comparable period of American history. How can the machinery for conducting foreign relations best be organized to meet these increasing responsibilities?The conduct of foreign relations in the modern world is no simple matter. Technical experts, intelligence systems, ability to negotiate, national political stability, a large and loyal staff of public servants—these are but some of the national requisites for effective participation in world affairs. The mobilization and organization of the best staff resources in the country, the negotiation of national policies, and then of international agreements, constitute a formidable task under any system of government.The conduct of foreign relations is, of course, easiest in a completely authoritarian state. It is made immeasurably more difficult by any division of authority. In most non-authoritarian governments, some division of authority has been found desirable, even at the expense of occasional awkwardness of procedure, because thereby the dangers of usurpation of power are minimized. The United States has gone farther than any democratic country in dividing responsibility in foreign affairs. Not only is there the usual distinction between legislative and executive authority, but the independence of the two branches has been so far underlined that the achievement of over-all government policies (as distinct from legislative and executive policies) is extremely difficult unless the party relationships are just right between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Canada-US tariff troubles may flare more broadly

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
North American ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Content Type

Significance Canada has a temporary exemption, but Trump is calling for North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiations to be completed speedily. The NAFTA and tariffs issues have, therefore, become fused, raising questions about the outlook for Canada-US foreign relations. Impacts In the short term, Canadian steel companies may benefit from reduced foreign providers’ presence in the United States. Canada’s NAFTA negotiators will not respond to the Trump team’s threat to impose tariffs. Canadian businesses will begin to migrate south to take advantage of the new and more competitive US tax regime. Canada’s efforts to diversify its foreign trade and decrease US dependence will further accelerate, but still face hurdles.

The Logan Act: Paper Tiger or Sleeping Giant?

1966 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Detlev F. Vagts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Foreign Government ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Criminal Statute ◽  
The Government

For 167 years the shadow of the Logan Act has fallen upon those Americans who trespass on the Federal monopoly of international negotiations which it creates. In theory, up to three years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine await those Americans who, without authority, communicate with a foreign government intending either (a) to influence that government with respect to a controversy with the United States or (b) to defeat the measures of the United States. Though only one indictment and no trial have taken place under the Act, who can tell when a new Administration, thinner skinned or harder pressed than its predecessors, may in its irritation call into play this sleeping giant? Now, at a time when domestic opposition to certain aspects of our foreign policy has reached a pitch unknown for many years, it would be well to reflect upon this curious product of the confluence of criminal law and foreign relations law before we are in fact confronted by a test of its strength. All could be the losers from an unpremeditated encounter—the defendant by finding himself, perhaps to his very great surprise, the first person subjected to the Act’s severe criminal penalties, the Government by finding itself stripped of its long accustomed protection by a ruling that the statute as it now reads is unconstitutionally vague or restrictive of free speech. Despite its long desuetude as a criminal statute, the Act represents a principle which I cannot help but think is, at its core, a salutary one; that America in sensitive dealings with other governments “speaks with one voice.” It embodies the concept of bipartisanship, that quarrels about foreign relations are fought out domestically and not with the adversary. It deters sometimes very ill-advised attempts to take the conduct of foreign affairs into foolish and unauthorized hands. On the other hand, it cuts into freedoms which we regard as having the highest value, and many of the situations in which its use has been suggested clearly involve no danger that would justify such a restraint.

scholarly journals Spinning War and Peace: Foreign Relations and Public Relations on the Eve of World War II

2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW JOHNSTONE
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
World War ◽  
The Face ◽  
Global Events

The eve of World War II saw the development of direct connections between public relations experts and issues of foreign affairs in the United States. Public relations professionals assisted both internationalists and noninterventionists to spread their arguments across the nation, helping them to hone their messages, to organize, and to raise money. All of the main citizens’ organizations created during this period sought public relations assistance in the face of growing popular awareness of global events, and with an awareness of the need for public relations counsel in the face of an increasingly measurable concept of public opinion.

Power, Force and Diplomacy

1981 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 410-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ability To Act ◽  
Human Ability ◽  
Political Philosopher ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
Intense Debate

The present crisis has generated intense debate over the instruments of foreign policy the United States has at its disposal and controversy over their use in particular stages of a dispute or conflict. The debate has centered over the meaning and use of power and force. A little more than a decade ago, writing On Violence in an era when its primary manifestation was within national boundaries, the American political philosopher, the late Hannah Arendt, sought to distinguish between violence and power, saying: “… power always stands in need of numbers, whereas violence up to a point … relies on implements.” Writers differ on concepts such as power and violence. Power for some is conceived as the ability of the individual or the group to impose its will on others. Power for Arendt implied the human ability to act in concert —potestas in populo; without a people or group there is no power in politics. Power for individuals and groups is linked with prestige and authority. In politics, authority requires respect either for a person or an office; its enemy is contempt or laughter directed at the person or office. In both foreign relations and domestic affairs, “violence appears as a last resort to keep … power … intact against individual challengers — the foreign enemy, the native criminal …” or to overthrow authority. It would seem, therefore, that force and violence are the prerequisites of power and power nothing but a facade. In a violent world, it is force that counts not power which is dependent on force.

scholarly journals A Case Report of Coccidioidomycosis in the Renal Parenchyma of Unusual Severity

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 232470962199533
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Coleman ◽  
Valerie F. Civelli ◽  
Rupam Sharma ◽  
Arash Heidari ◽  
Royce H. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Case Report ◽  
South America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Body ◽  
Renal Parenchyma ◽  
Genitourinary System ◽  
First Case ◽  
Disseminated Disease ◽  
Hispanic Male

Coccidioidomycosis (CM) is an endemic fungal infection that is found in the Southwestern United States and adjacent areas of Mexico as well as Central and South America. In the United States, 150 000 to 300 000 infections occur annually. The majority are asymptomatic. Of the symptomatic cases, the majority are primary pneumonic disease that varies from mild to very severe. A minority of persons develop disseminated disease (extrapulmonary disease). These typically manifest as meningitis, osteomyelitis, synovitis, and integumentary. CM has been described in virtually every part of the body, including the genitourinary system. Disseminated CM to the genitourinary tract is well known to occur but is rarely documented. It is believed this is the first case to report disseminated CM to the renal parenchyma. Diagnosis and treatment are described in a 56-year-old Hispanic male.

scholarly journals What is Foreign Relations Law?

2019 ◽  
pp. 2-20
Author(s):  
Curtis A. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Distinct Field

This chapter considers what is potentially encompassed by the term “foreign relations law,” and what it means to think about it as a distinct field of law that can be compared and contrasted across national jurisdictions. The term “foreign relations law” encompasses the domestic law of each nation that governs how that nation interacts with the rest of the world. Many issues of foreign relations law concern allocations of authority between political actors, such as the authority to represent the nation in diplomacy, to conclude and terminate international agreements, to recognize foreign governments and their territories, and to initiate or end the use of military force. But foreign relations law also encompasses issues relating to the role of the courts in transnational cases, such as whether certain issues are “nonjusticiable” and thus subject entirely to political branch determination, whether courts should take into account considerations of international comity when interpreting and applying domestic law, and whether and to what extent courts can apply international law directly to decide a particular case. The chapter describes the historical development of foreign relations law as a field of study within the United States and considers why it has not been treated as a field in many other countries. The chapter concludes by highlighting a central question for foreign relations law, which is the extent to which it should be treated differently than other types of domestic law—referred to in the United States as a debate over “foreign affairs exceptionalism.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document