12.2
Articles
"Don't Tread on Us": International
Law and Forcible State Responses to Terrorism
Robert J. Beck & Anthony C. Arend, 153
International terrorism poses a difficult problem for the world
community. There is not a consensus on the definition of what
defines terrorism thereby not providing a common ground upon which
nations can work toward a solution. International law must determine
which acts are impermissible as acts of terrorism and must determine
what state responses are appropriate. Because terrorism may be
initiated by varying actors (i.e. states,
individuals, fundamentalist
groups, etc.) and the act may involve varying degrees of harm,
state responses should be comparable to the nature of the specific
act. A state should forcibly respond when the terrorist act reaches
the level of an armed attack upon the state thus triggering that
state's right to self-defense.
Jerusalem: An Analysis of Legal Claims and
Political Realities
Michael Eisner, 221
This article addresses the applicable legal issues involved in
the Israeli-Palestinian struggle over Jerusalem with respect to
major events in 20th century. Eisner divides the city into three
regions (East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, and the West Bank) and
discusses the possible claims to legal title for each region.
The article ends with five alternative solutions for Jerusalem
and a recommended solution. Eisner evaluates each solution in
terms of its contribution to a foundation for lasting peace. In
addition, each alternative includes a range of possible settlements
and discussion of the essential factors that peace accords must
address.
The Pollution Haven Problem in International
Law: Can the International Community Harmonize Liberal Trade,
Environment, and Economic Development Policies?
Robert L. McGeorge, 277
An "alleged pollution haven" is a less developed country
that attempts to enhance competitiveness of its industries and
attract investment capital through lax environmental and conservation
standards. This article explores the tensions between alleged
pollution havens, environmentalists and proponents of free trade.
McGeorge also focuses on the conflict
between sovereign nations and interference with regard to environmental
development policies. The article discusses five principal situations
where the industrial environmental policies of alleged pollution
havens may infringe on the sovereign rights of other states or
universal human rights and therefore give rise to claims under
international law. McGeorge analyzes the five issues from various
perspectives. This analysis focuses on the underlying principles
and normative values and includes existing case law,
treaties, and international conventions. The article continues
by describing the applicable injuries under international law
caused by the relaxed environmental and conservation standards
of the alleged pollution havens. McGeorge constructs a framework
of principles and normative values that balance the legitimate
rights and obligations of the alleged pollution havens,
their citizens, neighboring states, and trading partners. A complementary
legal framework is emerging, concludes McGeorge,
but involved parties must promote the essential objectives of
liberal trade, environmental and economic development policy while
complementing existing and emerging rules of international law.
Case Note
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Before
and After Republic of Argentina v. Weltover
Lisa Naomi Sweet, 375
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)
grants immunity to sovereigns from suit in US courts; several
exceptions to the FSIA exist, including the "commercial
activity exemption." This note
explains how the Weltover case clarified
the test to determine whether FSIA immunity applies to a foreign
sovereign engaged in commercial activity with a direct effect
in the US. Sweet discusses the history of sovereign immunity under
US law before the FSIA and the FSIA's
inconsistent interpretations and lack of statutory guidance. The
article reviews the Weltover case in terms of legislative
history and prior case law, specifically the standard for "direct
effect." The Weltover
court dismissed any requirement of substantiality or foreseeability
and merged the casual relationship and place of performance
tests to find whether a "direct
effect" with the US exists.
Sweet concludes that the Weltover decision introduces a
more objective, though very broad, definition of "direct
effect" and therefore clarifies
and simplifies the FSIA's previously
vague interpretations. In addition.
Sweet contends Weltover will increase predictability by
providing a clear standard for lower courts to follow regarding
the FSIA's "direct effect" requirement to the exception.
Comment
The "Tax War" Between the United
States and Japan Under Internal Revenue Code '482:
Is There a Solution?
Masahiro Max Yoshimura, 401