S. policymakers about the international consensus on questions and issues. The U.S. thus uses international law in its foreign policy and also contributes to its formation and development. This is why it formally recognizes and respects fundamental rules and principles as guide to its foreign policy (Joyner). American leaders view any such limitation on sovereignty as an organizing principle in international law as tantamount to an abdication of the rights of U.S. citizens to be governed only by their Constitution and their leaders. If this limitation is allowed, the actions of the U.S. will cease to be lawful. The ultimate authority will cease to lie in the hands of the American people and shift to international institutions. Despite its humanitarian and democratic slant, the new international law is considered undemocratic from its very foundation. An international system would govern a community of undemocratic nations (Rivkin and Casey).
However, American foreign policy has not focused very much on international law (Rivkin and Casey 2000). Since the end of the Cold War, many international organization have struggled to modify the traditional law of nations governing the relationships between States into an international regulatory code. This intended and new international law would also govern the relationship between citizens and their government. It would regulate primary domestic issues, such as environmental protection and the rights of children. It would also virtually eradicate the use of military force, avoid all civilian casualties during combat, promote the equitable criminal prosecution of individual state leaders or officials by the courts of other countries or States and by international tribunals. It would also allow or even require international intervention in internal affairs. When appropriately amended, international law would be a real and immediate threat to American national interests (Rivkin and Casey).
This trend is viewed as the act of both the friends and enemies of the U.S. who want an efficient means of checking or at least reduce American power in the world (Rivkin and Casey 2000). It is clear that the major problem confronted by international affairs after the Cold War is the unchallenged military, diplomatic, economic and cultural leadership of the United States. The U.S. administration has generally shown support for the new international law but it has not received proper focus because of huge problems it brings to the U.S. One is that the new international law will open the U.S.' principle of sovereignty to ...
The new international law would not only undermine American leadership in the current global system but also render the world safe for aggression (Rivkin and Casey 2000). It would restrain countries, which would otherwise be willing and capable to deter and crush aggression. The U.S. is quite wary about creating or cooperating in the creation of judicial institutions to prosecute individual soldiers or officials. According to the "universal jurisdiction" theory, any State or even a foreign magistrate, could initiate a prosecution against American military or civilian officials for violations of international humanitarian rights. If this would be the norm of the new international law, neither limits nor the means to a neutral application could be established. This type of intervention is not likely to create a more just or safe world. Instead, it will incline unprepared or unqualified States to obtain their own weapons of mass destruction as a means to repelling or preventing Western intervention into their own internal affairs. It will establish this type of humanitarian intervention as the rule rather than as the exception (Rivkin and Casey). The court system was intended to resolve disputes between parties by courts with designated authority. But currently, they are being used as a means to transmit moral messages and mere advisory opinions on international human rights and foreign relations. There is no convincing evidence that making an act of war the subject of a civil suit and filed by private litigants is or will be a beneficial law or a beneficial foreign policy (Rivkin and Casey).
Joyner, Christopher C. International Law. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, 2002. Retrieved on January 1, 2008 at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132421
Mitchell, Paul Andrew. Citizenship is a Term of Municipal Law. Supreme Law Firm:
Supreme Law Library, 2005. Retrieved on January 1, 2008 at http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/privlaw.htm
Rivkin, David. B., Jr. And Lee a. Casey. The Shoals of International Law. The National
Interest: The Natinal Affairs, Inc., 2000
American leaders view any such limitation on sovereignty as an organizing principle in international law as tantamount to an abdication of the rights of U.S. citizens to be governed only by their Constitution and their leaders. If this limitation is allowed, the actions of the U.S. will cease to be lawful. The ultimate authority will cease to lie in the hands of the American people and shift to international institutions. Despite its humanitarian and democratic slant, the new international law is considered undemocratic from its very foundation. An international system would govern a community of undemocratic nations (Rivkin and Casey).
The judges of the Court of Appeal consequently ruled that this Convention applied to the transportation between Paris and Dublin. This overrode the airline's terms and conditions including those limiting its liability. Appeal Courts can review findings of fact, but more importantly business people responsible for shipments must understand their contracts and the implications of the various Conventions. This must be backed up by appropriate goods-in-transit insurance. The result is
Operations of International Law and Organizations Reason MNCs have become important in International Relations and Law International law is defined as a set of rules and customs governing the relationships among nation-states. Traditionally, nation-states are considered the principal actors of international law, however, there are an increasing number of other actors that influence the conduct of international relations. MNCs (multinational corporations), international organizations, domestic actors and individuals are increasingly influencing the conduct
International Sales Contract Ross T. Smyth and Co. Vs. TD Bailey Son & Co  All ER This paper will examine and discuss the specific implications of Lord Wright's statement and how this related to the seller and buyer, specifically in the context of the c.i.f. And f.o.b. contractual meaning. In the historical case Ross T. Smyth and Co Ltd. Vs. TD Bailey, Son & Co.  3 All ER 60, Lord Wright,
law in England are: common law, statute law, subordinate legislation, custom, and European community law. Common law: This is the cannon of law applying to the general swathes of law that are decided by the judges and adapted to changing times. Judges make its rules over the years that have relied on precedents of other cases and adapted preceding rulings to suit the circumstances of the present instance. Each new
During this Diaspora, the African Slave Trade transferred 9-12 million people from one continent to another with major repercussions on cultural and political traditions in the New World. There have been a number of modern Diasporas based on the post-Cold War world in which huge populations of refugees migrated from conflict, especially from developing countries (Southeast Asia, China, Afghanistan, Iran, Latin America, South American, Rwanda, etc.). Part 1.2.1 - Civil
Differences in international orientation include ethnocentric, polycentric, geocentric, and regiocentric. Each of these has varying levels of recognition of how diverse one culture is relative to another with the ethnocentric mindset being the most biased towards ones' own culture being the best. The one that sees a more accurate view of globalization is polycentric which sees the unique values of each culture on its own merits. Globalization has also seen