No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Extract
The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the Department of State.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989
References
page 905 note 1 Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3435 (1986) (8 U.S.C. §1187 (Supp. IV 1986)).
page 905 note 2 See 53 Fed. Reg. 24,898 and 50,160 (1988).
page 906 note 3 54 Fed. Reg. 27,120 (1989).
page 906 note 4 Id. A corresponding final rule issued as an amendment to 22 C.F.R. §41.2(l) by Joan Clark, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, also on June 20, 1989, is at id.
page 906 note 1 TIASNo. 10,241, reprinted in 20 ILM 1198 (1981) (entered into force Sept. 23, 1981). See 76 AJIL 374 (1982).
page 906 note 2 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 UST 6223, TIAS No. 6577, 606 UNTS 267. The United States is not a party to the Convention, July 28, 1951, 189 UNTS 150.
page 910 note 3 Dept. of State Files L/HRR.
page 910 note 1 Dept. of State File No. P89 0083-0310.
page 912 note 2 Id. No. P85 0069-2121.
page 912 note 1 See further Agora: The Downing of Iran Air Flight 653, 83 AJIL 318 (1989); Correspondence from Andreas F. Lowenfeld, id. at 551.
page 913 note 2 Dept. of State Daily Press Briefing No. 122, July 17, 1989, at 2. In a background briefing held later that day, a senior State Department official, in response to questions from the press, explained (1) that the United States was offering less to the Vincennes victims than it had asked for victims of the Stark incident because there was “no similarity” between the cases (“the attack on the Stark had no justification in self-defense”); and (2) that the United States did not intend to compensate Iran for the loss of the aircraft. Background Briefing on Ex Gratia Compensation regarding Iranian Airbus Flight 655, at 2, 4 (July 17, 1989), Dept. of State File No. P89 0096-0804.
page 913 note 3 ICJ Communiqué No. 89/6, May 17, 1989. In its Application, Iran asked the Court to declare the U.S. Government “responsible to pay compensation to the Islamic Republic, … as measured by the injuries suffered by the Islamic Republic and the bereaved families …, including additional financial losses which Iran Air and the bereaved families have suffered for the disruption of their activities.” Id.
page 913 note 1 UN Doc. E/CONF.82/15 (1988), reprinted in 28 ILM 493 (1989).
page 914 note 2 25 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 931 (June 26, 1989); S. Treaty Doc. No. 4, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., at iii (1989).
page 914 note 3 S. Treaty Doc. No. 4, supra note 2, at x.
page 914 note 4 Id. Preparation of the 1988 Convention followed the adoption of GA Res. 39/141 (Dec. 14, 1984), which endorsed negotiation of a new multilateral convention to complement the existing international drug control instruments, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Mar. 30, 1961, 18 UST 1407, TIAS No. 6298, 520 UNTS 204, asamended Mar. 25, 1972, 26 UST 1439, TIAS No. 8118, 976 UNTS 3; and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Feb. 21, 1971, 32 UST 543, TIAS No. 9725, 1019 UNTS 175. Secretary Baker pointed out in his report that those two Conventions regulate the legal production and distribution of controlled substances, but do not provide an adequate legal basis for addressing and controlling the increased threat from illicit drug trafficking across international borders.
page 915 note 1 Pub. L. No. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1625, 1627 (1977) (50 U.S.C. §1702(c) (1982)).
page 915 note 2 Pub. L. No. 99-83, 99 Stat. 190, 221 (1985) (22 U.S.C. §2349aa-9) (Supp. IV 1986)).
page 917 note 3 H.R. Doc. No. 68, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 1–3 (1989); 25 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 761 (May 29, 1989).
page 917 note 1 For the texts of the Agreement and its annexes, and the two Agreed Statements, see 28 ILM 877 (1989).
* Jean A. Y. du Pont of the District of Columbia Bar assisted the Editor in the preparation of the summaries in this issue.