Commercial Treaties Research Articles

Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Japan

Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Japan

The European Economic Community and the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause

The most-favoured-nation clause has for long been an important catalyst to world trade; not only do the parlies to a treaty with such a clause undertake to extend to each other, immediately and unconditionally, any reduction in trade barriers which one of them may grant to any other state, but they are also prevented from discriminating against any states with whom they may have concluded such agreements. While the interpretation of the clause has caused some difficulty and its usefulness in treaties with statetrading nations is somewhat doubtful, it is nevertheless included in nearly all treaties of commerce.

A Moroccan Amīr's Commercial Treaty with Venice of the year 913/1508

I N 1508 the Mediterranean port of Bādis, located on the coast of the Rīf on approximately the same meridian as Malaga, shared with Salé and Azemmour on the Atlantic the distinction of being the only Moroccan ports not occupied by either the Spanish or Portuguese. Subject to the Wattasids at Fās, at about the beginning of the sixteenth century Bādis had been granted by the reigning Wattāsidto a cousin, who for some years ruled almost independently there. Because of its geographical situation the port was of considerable interest to the Republic of Venice, two of whose merchant fleets had occasion to call there in the course of their voyages along the coasts of the Mediterranean.Venetian interest in Bādis is illustrated by two Arabic documents: a treaty and its covering letter addressed by the Amīr of Bādis to the Doge of Venice, written in the year 1508 and concerning the establishment of commercial relations. The originals of these two documents are preserved in the Archivio di Stato di Venezia (ASV) where also, in the Libri Commemoriali, transcripts of their contemporary Italian translations are to be found. These translations are reproduced here together with the Arabic texts.

American Policy in Thailand

HE AMERICAN-EQUIPPED THAI ARMY played a major role in the September 1957 coup d'dtat which enabled Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat to seize control of the government in Thailand (Siam). The former Prime Minister, Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram, and the former DirectorGeneral of the police force, General Phao Sriyanon, were sent fleeing into exile and the political power in Thailand became concentrated in the hands of one man. The United States was deeply involved in this sudden turn of events as American aid and influence had bolstered the political power exercised by each of these three contenders. This article will survey the influence exerted by Americans on the government and people of Thailand as they have attempted to exchange their traditional system of political absolutism for some form of constitutional democracy. American influence in Siam began very early in the nineteenth century after the country had been ruled for over five centuries by an absolute monarchy. American trading vessels came to Bangkok as early as 1818 and introduced the Thai to many modern scientific and mechanical innovations.' An American diplomatic mission arrived shortly thereafter, and in 1833 Edmund Roberts negotiated a commercial treaty with the king of Siam which was the first treaty between the United States and any country in Asia.2 Near the end of the nineteenth century the United States was the first nation to raise its diplomatic mission in Siam from a consulate to a legation, and following World War I the United States was likewise the first country to abolish its privileges of extraterritoriality which had been included in a treaty negotiated in 1856 by the renowned Townsend Harris. One of the most pervasive influences exerted by the Americans in Siam during the nineteenth century was that accomplished by Protestant missionaries. Arriving in the 1830's, the missionaries had virtually no success in converting the Thai to Christianity and quickly turned to education, medical work, and the introduction of modern technology. The missionaries brought the first printing press to Siam, opened the first medical dispensary, and published the first newspaper.3 The Reverend Jesse Caswell, an American Congregationalist, tutored the young Prince Mongkut in English and science which had much in, fluence when Mongkut later became king and opened the country to extensive contact with the West. Until the early twentieth century the missionaries

Navigation Provisions in United States Commercial Treaties

The opening of American ports along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River to ocean-going vessels following the completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway draws attention anew to the legal basis for entry of foreign merchant vessels into American ports and waters. The present inquiry concerns the bilateral treaty provisions according such rights in the treaties currently in force and looks particularly to the right of entry and treatment in American ports. A number of treaties formerly in force are not considered; the limitations of a brief study justify their exclusion.1 For the purpose of the present study, United States commercial treaties may be chronologically arranged into three groups: (1) those perfected during the nineteenth century (a number of which have been terminated or superseded by more recent treaties),2 (2) those concluded in the period between the two World Wars (a substantial number of which are in force),' and (3) those negotiated since 1946 (comprising the greater number of instruments now in force).4 With few exceptions, these instruments, generally styled treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation, contain provisions (of varying length and detail) respecting the right of foreign vessels to enter American ports and waters for commercial purposes and prescribing the standards of treat-

United States Commercial Treaties and International Law.Robert R. Wilson

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsUnited States Commercial Treaties and International Law. Robert R. Wilson Oscar SvarlienOscar Svarlien Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 23, Number 3Aug., 1961 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2127123 Views: 3Total views on this site PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

United States Commercial Treaties and International Law

United States Commercial Treaties and International Law

United States Commercial Treaties and International Law

United States Commercial Treaties and International Law

Sardinia and Commercial Reciprocity, 1819-38

EFORE the liberal reforms of 1848 the kingdom of Sardinia had a reputation for being hostile toward foreign trade and for failing to appreciate the potentialities of the excellent harbor and fully developed commercial life of Genoa. This criticism was well deserved for the period before 1838. In that year, however, a revolution in policy occurred during the negotiation of a commercial treaty with the United States. This is an analysis of the reasons for Sardinian commercial isolation before 1838 and for the shift in commercial policy that year. It is based primarily on the record of Sardinian relations with the United States. In 1819 Sardinia considered establishing commercial and navigation reciprocity with the United States and opened a consulate general at Philadelphia. But by 1824 this plan was abandoned in favor of commercial isolation. The negotiations at the time give the clue to Sardinia's failure to facilitate Genoese trade through governmental policy; those of 1838 reveal the reasons for the change. The shortsightedness of Sardinian officials before 1838 was not the result of any dedication to outmoded mercantilist ideas, nor was the shift in 1838 the product of conversion to laissez faire. The issue was one of political rather than economic survival. The problem of the integrity of the small state, wedged between France and Austria, had plagued the Turin government for centuries and almost all action was weighed against security. This concern led to the commercial isolation in the period before 1838. It affected the treaty negotiations of that year, obstructed the fulfillment of the commitments made to the United States in the treaty, and plagued as well the liberal government of Cavour. When in 1819 Sardinia assigned one of the experienced men in her consular service, Gaspard Deabbate, to Philadelphia to negotiate commercial and navigation reciprocity, she did so with a sense of urgency.1 The reason for haste was the peculiar position in which the Sardinian government found itself after it acquired the republic of Genoa in 1815. Since the kingdom already dominated the Alpine passes to Lake Geneva and the excellent roads over them, it was now in a position to assume commercial leadership in south-central Europe. But Genoese ecoX nomic life had already been in decline by the eighteenth century, and the Napoleonic era almost dealt it a death blow. In 1814 the merchants and shippers of Genoa had worked strenuously for the restoration of the republic, hoping thus to recreate the greatness that had once been theirs. When the area was awarded to the king of Sardinia, the Genoese accepted his rule none too graciously. The Sardinian government was challenged with the immediate problem of rehabilitating the economic life of Genoa, not only to serve the best interests of the state, but also to win the loyalty of the Genoese. Many subjects were bringing pressure to bear on the Sardinian government to negotiate commercial reciprocity 1 Marquis de St. Marzano to Gaspard Deabbate, Turin, Oct. 19, 1819, Lettere consoli filadelfia, Archivio di Stato in Torino, Ministero degli Affari Esteri (hereinafter cited as AS, MAE).

Tennant, Sons & Co. of New York v. Dill.

Treaties — Operation and Enforcement of — In Municipal Law — Statute Prevailing over Prior Inconsistent Treaty — Commercial Treaty — Import Quota — General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade — The Law of the United States of America.Treaties — Special Kinds of — Commercial Treaties — Most-Favoured-Nation Clause — As to Duties and Customs Formalities — Whether Applicable to Import Quotas — General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1947 — Subsequent Statute Inconsistent with Treaty — Effect in Municipal Law — The Law of the United States of America.

Colonial Molasses Co., Inc. v. United States.

Treaties — Special Kinds of — Commercial Treaties — Treaty Providing for Tariff Preference — Suspension by Later Treaty — General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1947 — Consistency with Municipal Law — The Law of the United States of America.

The Immunity Waiver for State-Controlled Business Enterprises in United States Commercial Treaties

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

United States Commercial Treaties and International Law

United States Commercial Treaties and International Law

Institut National des Appellations d'Origine des Vins et Eaux-de-Viev. Mettes.

The Individual in International Law — Position of — Effect of Treaties on Individuals — The Law of Holland.584Treaties — Operation of — Necessity for Municipal Legislation — Self-Executing Treaties — Treaty Binding Directly Upon Individuals — Self-Executing Nature of Provisional Agreement — Netherlands-French Commercial Treaty of 1935 — The Law of Holland.

British Opposition to the Cession of Pearl Harbor

As A RESULT of serious economic depression in Hawaii in 1872 with falling off of nearly five million pounds in the quantity of sugar exported, and the accession of new king, William Lunalilo, friendly to American interests, agitation for commercial treaty with the neighboring republic was resumed. In view, however, of the failure of the United States Senate to ratify the 1855 and 1867 treaties, there was general recognition in Honolulu that reciprocity alone was unacceptable to Washington and could be secured through the offer of quid pro quo. The first open and published proposal that Pearl River lagoon be offered in exchange for reciprocity appeared on February 8, 1873, in the Pacific Commercial Advertiser, then edited by William L. Green, member of Janion, Green and Company, successful English businessman of some twenty years residence in the islands who had served as acting British commissioner and had favored the reciprocity treaty of 1867. The editorial referred to the unsatisfactory business outlook and expressed the opinion that the time was propitious for the negotiation of reciprocity treaty with the United States. Hawaii, if necessary, could offer a position for harbor and coaling station .... We refer, of course, to the Pearl River.' Several persons high in authority questioned Minister Peirce about the probable reaction of his government to an offer of such cession, and he expressed the opinion that the United States would probably object to acquiring sovereignty over only part of the island. Admiral A. M. Pennock of the U.S.S. California believed that such an offer, if made, would be accepted. Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield, who, along with Brig. Gen. B. S. Alexander, was on vacation in Hawaii, seemed to share the same opinion. Actu-

Some Lessons of Japan's Economic Development, 1853-1938

THE ACCELERATED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT of Russia and China has coincided with the unexpectedly rapid postwar recovery of Japan and with a boom in economics and other social studies. One result has been a revival of Western interest in the earlier economic development of Japan and in the significance of this episode for the under-developed world.* To single out only the most obvious English-language studies in evidence, we have the treatise of Lockwood, two monographs of Smith (to which will shortly be added one of Rosovsky), and a translation of the Japanese account by Ohkawa's group at Hitotsubashi University.' A number of features of Japanese development, particularly development during the Meiji Era (i867-i9I2), evokes the special interest of conservative Western students of economic development. Japan has of course been for nearly a century the unique success story of economic development along capitalist lines in a non-Caucasian country. Moreover, her development proceeded into, rather than away from, the international economy; it was based on multilateral trade rather than autarky or bilateral barter, and was restricted until i899 by unequal commercial treaties to something very like free trade. At the same time, Japan was in no important way dependent upon financial assistance from abroad. Her development was apparently financed more largely from domestic saving than had been the earlier developments of Germany and the United States, not to mention the later developments of Canada and Australia. It moved in accordance with the natural pattern advocated by Western economists since Adam Smith-from agriculture and handicrafts through light industry to heavy industry. If we except the directly military sector (armament industries), there was little of the forced-

I. John Methuen and the Anglo-Portuguese Treaties of 1703

Much has been written about the Methuen Commercial Treaty and its influence for good or bad. Rather less has been said about the negotiations which related to it, though Sir Richard Lodge wrote a good summary of the three Methuen treaties in Professor Prestage's Chapters in Anglo-Portuguese Relations and there is an excellent and much fuller account in German by Johann Albrecht. Some of the facts relating to these negotiations are still little known and there may, therefore, be scope for the following article, which attempts to set out some of the difficulties with which John Methuen had to contend and to place the commercial treaty in perspective.

Cussons, Sons and Co. Ltd., Phya Attakrom Manutti v. Riew Chiang, Director of Srimongkol Trading Corporation.

Treaties — Operation of — Treaties of Commerce and Navigation — Corporation Created under English Law with Principal Office in United Kingdom — Capacity to Sue and Be Sued Before Siamese Courts — Direct Application by Court of Provisions of Bilateral Treaties.

5. Self-Executing Nature of the Netherlands-French Commercial Treaty of 1935

5. Self-Executing Nature of the Netherlands-French Commercial Treaty of 1935

Arbitration of State-Trading Relations

State-trading operations, it is widely felt, including those not completely motivated by economic considerations, should conform to world trade customs, at least in so far as the disposition of controversies is concerned.1 A reflection of this attitude can be found in the modern commercial treaties of the United States, which expressly disavow immunity in state-trading relations with respect not only to suits2 in ordinary courts, but also to arbitration.3 Thus, too, recent resolutions of the Inter-American Bar Association,4 the International Law Association,5 and the International Chamber