Helms-Burton: Extending the Limits of US Jurisdiction

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 131-148

  van den Brink, Jens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009180679     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X00004411     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. See 142 Cong. Rec. E 371 (daily ed. March 14, 1996) (statement by Representative Burton)
2. Pub. L. No. 104–114, 110 Stat. 785 (March 12, 1996) (hereinafter the Act).
3. 142, Cong. Rec. S1479, S1483 (daily ed. March 5, 1996) (statement of Sen. Bingaman, citing former Chief Holmes in a dissenting opinion).
4. See, e.g., ‘US policy: Held Hostage in Miami’, Washington Post (February 29, 1996): ‘Question: who sets US policy towards Cuba? (A) the President (B) Congress (C) any Cuban-American with an airplane The answer apparently is “CV Some claim ‘Brothers to the Rescue’ went looking for trouble by violating Cuba's sovereign airspace on several previous occasions and thus ‘suckered’ the US into enacting Helms-Burton. However, the shooting still constitutes a flagrant violation of international law, which has been acknowledged by the UN Security Council, see statement of the President of the UN Security Council on February 26, 1996, at 35 ILM (1996) pp. 493–494.
5. Over 5,000 properties, with a total value of over $6 billion, were confiscated. See De Volkskrant, ‘Conflicts US-EU Averted’ (July 17, 1996).
6. Pub. L. No. 102–84, October 23, 1992, 22 USC ss. 6001–6010 (1994).
7. See Pub. L. 5, at S 1493.
8. L.F. Damrosch, ‘The Civilian Impact of Economic Sanctions’, in Enforcing Restraint: Collective Intervention in Internal Conflicts (Council on Foreign Relations, 1993) p. 275.
9. See s. 2 (5) of the Act. 18. The Act even refers to the appropriate UN SC Res. (No. 940 of July 31,1994) ins. 2 (26).
10. S.C. Res. 841 (June 16, 1993). However, some did declare democracy a basic right, e.g., Art. 5(d) of the Charter of the Organization of American States.
11. See, e.g., L. Henkin, International Law; Politics, Values and Functions (Martinus Nijhoff, 1990) p. 152.
12. Joint Corporate Committee on Cuban Claims, at S International Law; Politics, Values and Functions n. 5, 1488
13. International Law; Politics, Values and Functions at (II)
14. S. 306 (b) (1) granted the President this authority to suspend.
15. S. 306 (b) (2) of the Act gave him the required authority for this second suspension.
16. S. 302 (a) (1) (A) of the Act.
17. S. 302 (b) of the Act. 35. International Shoe v. Washington, 326 US 310 (1945).
18. See ‘The Many Sins of the Helms-Burton Law’, in The Globe and Mail (July 1, 1996).
19. See ILM 1996, S. 306 (b)(2).
20. F.A. Mann, Further Studies in International Law (Clarendon Press 1990) p. 126, at p. 186. 45. E.g., Inter-American Juridical Opinion of the OAS Examining the US Helms-Burton Act, 35 ILM (1996) pp. 1322, 1331: ‘(d) The claimant State does not have the right to attribute liability to nationals of third States for the use of expropriated property located in the territory of the expropriating State where such use conforms to the laws of this latter State’.
21. (France v. Turkey) 1927 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 10. 49. Restatement s. 403, 1 ALI (1987) pp. 244–245.
22. O. Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice (Martinus Nijhoff, 1991) p. 263.
23. A. Lowenfeld, ‘Congress and Cuba: the Helms-Burton Act’, 90 ILM (1996) pp. 419, 431.
24. See 35 ILM (1996) p. 483.
25. Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, 549 F 2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976).
26. See Restatement s. 403 (2) (h). Or, see Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 US 764 (1993).
27. The option of risking liability does not seem like a very appealing third choice. 58. See Oppenheim, Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California n. 44, at pp. 433–434, note 14.
28. The option of risking liability does not seem like a very appealing third choice n. 52, at p. 430.
29. See Underhill v. Hernandez 168 US 250, 252 (1897).
30. J.R. Ratchik, ‘Cuban Liberty and the Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995’, 11 AUJ Int. L & Pol. (1996) pp. 343, 364.
31. H. Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 2nd edn., (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966) pp. 438–439.
32. See, Principles of International Law n. 5, at S1490 (statement of Sen. Dodd).
33. See Kelsen Principles of International Law 64, at p. 366.
34. December 17, 1992, Canada-Mexico-USA 32 ILM.
35. See, e.g, ‘EU Puts US “bully” in WTO Dock’, Financial Times (October 3, 1996).
36. See ‘US puts World Trade at Risk in Cuba Fight’, Christian Science Monitor (October 22, 1996).
37. See Christian Science Monitor section 4.4.
38. See Christian Science Monitor section 4.3.
39. ‘Opposition parties and independent civic organizations remain prohibited. Freedom of association does not exist. The regime does not tolerate freedom of speech or opinion. Those who dare speak out for democratic principles are harassed if they become too vocal. [Proponents of peaceful change are detained for hours or several days and released with a warning to alter their behavior or suffer the consequences;’ Peter Tarnoff Christian Science Monitor n. 10.
40. As Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor put it: ‘The US, as the most powerful economic and military entity on earth, needs to provide leadership. I would hope and expect our partners to review their policies and go along’. See Time (August 19, 1996) p. 36. 80. De Vollcskrant (July 13, 1996).