Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T08:52:32.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. Interpretation of Continuous Nationality Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , July 2002 , pp. 706 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The facts of the case as alleged by the Loewen Group, Inc., may be found in its Notice of Claim (Oct. 30, 1998), Loewen Group v. United States (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib.), while the U.S. government’s account of the facts may be found in U.S. Counter-Memorial (Mar. 30, 2001), Loewen Group v. United States (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib.). Pleadings in the case are available online at <http://www.state.gOv/s/l/c3755.htm>.

2 Counsel for O’Keefe had contrasted Loewen’s “foreign” nationality with O’Keefe’s “Mississippi roots,” highlighted that O’Keefe was not racist (thereby implying that Loewen was racist), and made class-based distinctions between Loewen as a large, wealthy corporation and O’Keefe as a family-owned business. See Notice of Claim, supra note 1, para. 4.

3 Loewen believed that there was “good cause” to reduce the appeal bond and that the failure to do so was therefore arbitrary. For example, Loewen asserted that the judgment was patently excessive and “almost certainly would have been reduced or vacated on appeal.” Id., para. 5.

4 Memorial of the United States of America on Matters of Jurisdiction and Competence Arising from the Restructuring of the Loewen Group, Inc. at 13-16, 20 (Mar. 1, 2002), Loewen Group v. United States (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib.) (footnotes omitted).