Domestic Statutes Research Articles

Status of International Conventions as against UAE Domestic Statutes

Status of International Conventions as against UAE Domestic Statutes

Selective Perceptions: The Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust

Adamson's conference report focuses on those speeches delivered at the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust that evinced a nationalistic tendency, particularly those given by delegates from Bulgaria, Latvia, Hungary and Turkey. He addresses the relationship between social conditions and solidarity with local Jewish communities, and shows, for instance, that whereas the representatives from Latvia and Turkey suggested that hardship was likely to threaten solidarity, the representative from Bulgaria argued rather that hardship was likely to enhance it. Another issue taken up concerns how moments from the historical past are put to use as constituents of national myths: whereas the speakers extolled resistance against the Nazis as the heroic acts of individuals, any collaboration was drained of intelligibility and a sense of responsibility, and reduced to being merely an episode of the national tragedy. Adamson also observes that the representatives from Latvia and Hungary put considerable emphasis upon their respective domestic legal statutes and their prohibition of racial hatred; this, he argues, is a very weak source of moral justification. Adamson then goes on to analyse and criticize the speeches delivered by the Bulgarian and Latvian delegates. On this subject he concludes that, in terms of, for instance, self-sacrifice or resistance against the Nazis, the former's speech considerably exaggerated the benevolent character of the Bulgarian people as a whole; it also, falsely, suggested that deportations of Jews in particular areas outside Bulgarian borders were not carried out by ‘Bulgarians’, and described, contrary to the evidence, the Bulgarian parliament as unanimously opposed to antisemitism. The Latvian delegate, in her turn, offered a rather subjective theory of the origins of ‘barbarity’ that was historically dubious.

State Immunity and Fundamental Human Rights

Should state immunity from jurisdiction be denied to states that violate fundamental human rights in breach of international law? This article critically discusses three analytical approaches which can be used to answer the question at the level of international law. These approaches are derived from a review of principles of state immunity and fundamental human rights, including ius cogens. The article goes on to examine why the results dictated by these approaches at the level ot international law may not be reflected by municipal legal systems, using US domestic statutes and case law as an example of how a domestic legal system has dealt with this question.

McElhinney v. Williams and Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

691State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Tort — Whether immunity applicable in respect of alleged assault within jurisdiction by foreign soldier — Alleged attempt by soldier to fire gun at plaintiff — Restrictive doctrine of immunity — Whether relevant act governmental in character — Whether exception to sovereign immunity exists in respect of torts committed by foreign States within the jurisdiction — ReciprocityRelationship of international law and municipal law — Statutes — State immunity — Whether domestic statutes can be regarded as evidence of rules of international law — Domestic statutes establishing exception to sovereign immunity in respect of torts committed within jurisdiction — Whether domestic provisions evidence or establish such an exception under international law — The law of Ireland

Artificial reef debate: Habitat enhancement or waste disposal?

Modern artificial reef projects are taking novel approaches to fishery habitat construction. Development of these reefs may involve the use of obsolete oil platforms, concrete blocks mixed with municipal incinerator ash, or even automobile tires. Because modern reef designs make use of materials heavily regulated by ocean dumping agreements and statutes, concern arises as to the effects of these reefs on the marine environment. The United States and the international community have promulgated regulatory measures designed to prevent the abuse of artificial reef placement. The regulations are intended to ensure that fishery habitat enhancement will not be used as a pretext for disguised ocean dumping. The international agreements and accepted principles of international law, however, provide only discretionary protection. Guidance over artificial reefs in U.S. waters consists of international standards and domestic statutes in conjunction with often inconsistent agency actions, thereby creating an increase...

English and American Courts and the Definition of War

In view of the increased interest in the problem of finding a legal definition for “war” or the “state of war” it seems worth while to consider briefly the hitherto rather neglected contributions to the subject by American and English courts. The problem of defining war has been effectively treated from several other viewpoints, but these English and American cases are worth examination for the further light they may shed on the fundamental questions involved. The fact that these decisions were in part prompted by the necessity of interpreting the phrase “war” or “state of war” in domestic statutes and that in all cases it is merely the voice of a national court speaking, need not detract from the value of the survey. The basis upon which judgment was rendered in most cases was (or at least was asserted to be) that of the law of nations, and, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, the decisions of national courts “show how the law of nations, in a given case, is understood in that country.”