Economic Sanctions, Trade Controls, and Foreign Policy Symposium
| VOLUME
27 |
Spring 1998
|
NUMBER
4 |
|
Factoring U.S. Export Controls and Sanctions Into International Trade Decisions
|
Anne Q. Connaughton |
| Trade is increasingly global and interconnected. U.S. companies are encouraged to export goods and services, since export trade ensures the continued competitiveness of U.S. firms, stimulates the economy, and creates higher paying jobs. Over the past decade, the United States and its allies have lifted many of the export license restrictions aimed principally at the former Soviet Bloc, permitting freer trade with most of the world. At the same time, however, the United States has significantly tightened export controls on terrorist-supporting regimes and countries seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. U.S. anti-terrorism controls are largely unilateral and therefore do not prevent rogue regimes from acquiring high technology goods and services from foreign sources. To counter this threat, the United States has enacted a number of "sanctions statutes" that provide, among other things, for sanctions against foreign persons and governments that engage in specified trade or investment with certain countries or entities. This paper suggests techniques for practitioners who must advise clients on how to comply with increasingly complex trade restrictions that include new anti-terrorism controls, comprehensive trade and investment embargoes and sanctions statutes |
|
|
|
The Conflict of United States Sanctions Laws with Obligations Under the North American Free Trade Agreement
|
Michael Wallace Gordon |
| Michael Wallace Gordon explores the conflicting provisions between the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the recent U.S. sanctions laws against Cuba. He suggests that if Canada and Mexico had foreseen U.S. Cuban sanctions, they may have demanded a provision in the NAFTA exempting a Party from participating in a boycott against a nation that is friendly with that Party. The Article concludes by noting that foreign nations view the U.S. sanctions laws against Cuba as inappropriate, and although inappropriateness is not a legal standard, it should be a signal to the United States that the coercive elements of sanctions should not be based upon political or electoral goals |
|
|
|
Can Helms-Burton Be Challenged Under WTO?
|
John A. Spanogle, Jr. |
| Mr. Spanogle examines the issues arising out of the European Union's response to the Helms-Burton Act. Specifically, the author explores the possibility of the EU effectively challenging the United States legislation under WTO and GATT, how such a challenge might be made, and the validity of any defenses that the United States might assert. In addition, he examines whether or not the GATT is the proper forum for such dispute resolution |
|
|
|
Creative Destruction - Idiosyncratic Claims of International Law and the Helms-Burton Legislation
|
Paul B. Stephan |
| This Article explores the implications of defections from international norms. It uses as examples the Section 301 sanctions of the Trade Act of 1974 and the private remedies envisioned by the Helms-Burton Act. Professor Stephen argues that when individual states defect from prevailing norms of international law, they may give resiliency to the very systems that the defections oppose. He also argues that defection serves as a check upon international lawmakers. In particular, Professor Stephen suggests that multilateral lawmakers should not be allowed unlimited power to develop international norms, in light of their lack of accountability |
|
|
|
Canadian Practitioners' Perspective on Sanctions and Trade Controls
|
Brenda Swick-Martin, Katherine Evans |
| The Authors provide an overview of the relationship between Canada and the United States with regard to trade legislation involving Cuba. Canada is one of the largest trading partners of both Cuba and the United States, and stands in a unique position with respect to the application of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic (LIBERTAD) Act. This article focuses on the Canadian response to the Helms-Burton legislation, both in term of governmental legislative and administrative countermeasures, as well as the issues faced by Canadian companies operating or seeking to become involved in Cuban opportunities |
|
|
|
No Panacrea: Analyzing Sanctions Before Imposition
|
David R. Moran |
| Office of Sanctions Policy Director David Moran analyzes the effectiveness of sanctions. He reflects the on-going debate over the proper use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool within the Department of State and in the broader Administration. It proposes applying sanctions as a tool of last resort and as part of a coherent strategy, rather than as a tool of first resort. The Author concludes with the State Department's goal of using multilateral rather than unilateral measures, as well as a more focused application of sanctions. To avoid collateral damage to the innocent citizen.
Office of Sanctions Policy Director David Moran analyzes the effectiveness of sanctions. He reflects the on-going debate over the proper use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool within the Department of State and in the broader Administration. It proposes applying sanctions as a tool of last resort and as part of a coherent strategy, rather than as a tool of first resort. The Author concludes with the State Department's goal of using multilateral rather than unilateral measures, as well as a more focused application of sanctions. To avoid collateral damage to the innocent citizen |
|
|
|
How to Approach a New Office of Foreign Assets Control Sanctions Program
|
William B. Hoffman |
| William Hoffman discusses how to approach a new sanctions program implemented by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). He examines both the legal authorities involved and the practical aspects of advising a client about how to handle business disruptions caused by sanctions |
|
|
|
U.S. Secondary Sanctions: The U.K. and E.U. Response
|
Nicholas Davidson |
| In this piece, the First Secretary of Trade Policy Nicholas Davidson describes the background to the dispute between the U.S. and European Union over the Helms-Burton and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Acts. It describes British objections to certain U.S. claims to extra-territorial jurisdiction and the response to such claims made by the Protection of Trading Interest Act of 1980. The Author highlights the objectionable elements in the Helms-Burton and Iran-Libya Sanctions Acts, concluding with an account of the European response to them, notably through the provisions of European Council Regulation 2271/96 |
|
|
|
M.C.L. v. Florida: A Vignette of the Inconsistencies Plaguing Establishment Clause Jurisprudence
|
Laura A. Bowers |
| This Note examines the history of educational federal and Florida Establishment Clause cases. Bowers discusses the Supreme Court's unwillingness to consistently adhere to an objective test defining activities which are consonant with the constitutional separation of church and state. Consequently, lower courts struggle with the Supreme Court's inconsistent and ever-changing criteria upon which it has decided Establishment Clause cases. The Note analyzes the constitutionality of M.C. L. v. Florida in which a sentencing judge ordered a delinquent juvenile to attend a moral and spiritual training program and to study the lives and works of particular religious leaders |
|
|
|
Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliot, Inc.: Has the Supreme Court Lost Its Way?
|
Katherine Earle Yanes |
| In this Note, Yanes critically analyzes the United States Supreme Court's Wileman decision which found that the First Amendment did not apply where parties were required to provide funding for commercial speech. The Note discusses the Court's treatment of commercial speech, compelled speech, and mandatory funding. Additionally, Yanes argues that the decision in Wileman not only further obfuscates the already confusing commercial speech case law, but is also inconsistent with the Court's compelled speech and mandatory funding decisions. Further, the note recommends that commercial speech be granted the same level of First Amendment protection that other forms of speech receive |
|
|
Stetson Law Review • 1401 61st Street South • Gulfport, Florida 33707
phone: (727) 562-7800 ext. 7955 • fax: (727) 347-4873 • lrmarked@law.stetson.edu
|
Gulfport, Florida 33707-3299