The Unilateralism of the United States and its Extraterritorial Measures and Sanctions In Conflict with International Law

Document Type : Original Article

Abstract

Although the United States had pledged not to intervene in any country under the doctrine of President James Monroe in 1822, the history of its diplomacy has in fact included numerous interventions, first in neighbouring countries(Latin America) and later in other continents.
With the founding of the World Trade Organization and the phenomenon of globalization, interfering policies of America in the economic field took shape and has become more widespread. What has made these policies reprehensible in the international arena in recent years is their legal approach and practice, with the enactment of the extraterritorial measures and the adoption of unilateral economic sanctions against several countries, especially the government of Iran. In the present study, in reviewing the unilateral measures of the United States in the World Trade Organization, what is more emphasized is the illegitimacy of unilateral sanctions in international law which is a clear feature of the United States policies in the current situation. In this context, the international stance of the Iranian government on the legal objections to the unilateral US sanctions is discussed.
The judicial action of the Iranian government at 16 July 2018 relying on the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, which lead to the Order indicating Provisional Measures of Protection. With this Order, the Court’s Judges indicated unanimously that the United States shall remove any impediments to the free exportation of humanitarian items to Iran. Now we have to wait for the Court’s final decision

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. کتابنامه

    1. Livres

     

    1. Bhagwati, J., & Patrick, H.T., Aggressive Unilateralism - America’s 301 Trade Policy and the World Trading System, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1990.
    2. Bierwagen, R.M., GATT Article VI and the Protectionist Bias in Anti-Dumping Laws, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publ., 1991.
    3. Carreau, D., Juillard, P., Flory, Th., Droit International Économique, 3e éd., Libr. Gén. De droit et de jur., Paris, 1990.
    4. Friedel-Souchu, E., Extraterritorialité du droit de la concurrence aux États-Unis et dans la Communauté Européenne, Livr. Gén. De droit et de jur., Paris, 1996.
    5. Flory, Th., Le Gatt- droit international et commerce mondial, Libr. Gén. De droit et de jur., Paris, 1968.
    6. Grotius, H., De Jure Belli AC Pacis Libri Tres (1646), Kessinger Publishing.
    7. Happold, M. & Eden, P., Economic Sanctions and International law, Hart publication, 2016.
    8. Malloy, M.P., Economic Sanctions and U.S. Trade, Little, Brown, 1990.
    9. Mapp, W., The Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, The First Ten Years 1981-1991, Manchester University Press, 1993.
    10. Schott, J.J., (ed.), The UEUGUAY Round: What Can Be Achieved, Completing the URUGUAY Round:  A Results-Oriented Approach to the GATT Trade Negociations, Washington DC, 1990.
    11. Silem, A., Albertini, J.M., Lexique d’économie, Dalloz, 1987.
    12. Wellens, K., Economic Conflicts and Disputes Before The World Court (1922-1995), Kluwer Law Inernational, 1996.

     

    B. Articles

    1. Arnold, J.R., The Oilseeds Dispute ande the Validity of Unilateralism in a Multilateral Context, 30 SJIL, 1994.
    2. Audit, B., Règlement des Différends entre les États-Unis et l’Iran, in: Clunet, 1981.
    3. Bourgeois, J.H.T., The Common Commercial Policy-Scope and Nature of the Powers, in: Protectionism and the European Community- Europa Institute, University of Amsterdam, Kluwer, 1983.
    4. van de Brink, J., Helms-Burton: extending the Limits of US Jurisdiction, in: NILR, 1997.
    5. Burdeau, G., Aspects juridiques de la mise en œuvre des accords de Marrakech, in: Colloque de Nice, Paris: Pédon, 1996.
    6. Calin, J.W., Extraterritorial Application of the U.S. Trade Embargo Against Cuba: The U.N. General Assembly’s Call for an End to the U.S. Trade Embargo, in: 24 GJICL 1995, pp. 386-387.
    7. Chang, Y.K., Special and Taiwan: A Case Study of Protecting U.S. intellectual Property in Foreign Countries, in: Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, Fall 1994, Vol. 15, No. 1.
    8. Cheyne, I., Environnemental Unilteralism and the WTO/GATT System, 24 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 433 (1995).
    9. Cosnard, M., Les Lois Helms-Burton et d’Amato-Kennedy, interdiction de commerce avec et d’investir dans certains pays, in : AFDI, 1996.
    10. Dattu, R., & Boscariol, J., GATT Article XXI, Helms-Burton and the Continuing Abus of the National Security Exception, Canadian Business Journal, vol. 28, 1997.
    11. Davey, W.J., Section 301 and its Effect on the Multilateral Trading System, in:  P. Demaret, J. Bourgeois and I. Van Bael, Trade Laws of the European Communty and United States in a Comparative Perspective, Conference organiszed with the support of the Commision of the EC, 14-15-16 September 1989, College of Europe, Bruges, No. 47, 1992.
    12. Dhooge, L.J., Fidding with Fidel: An Analysis of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 14, No. 3, Fall 1997.
    13. Fairley, H. Scott, Exceeeding the Limits of Terrritorial Bounds: the Helms-Burton Act, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 34, 1996.
    14. Hoelscher, Ch., The Helms-Burton Bill From A European Point of View, Tilburg Law Review, vol. 6, issue 3, 1997.
    15. Jackson, J.H., Observations sur les résultats du Cycle d’Uruguay, in: RGDIP 1994.
    16. Jouanjean, H., La négociation et entrée en viguerur du Traité de Marrakech, in: Colloque de Nice: la réorganisation mondiale des échanges (organisé par la S.F.D.I) (Paris: Pédon, 1996).
    17. Juillard, P., Le rôle joué par la République populaire et démocratique d’Algérie dans le règlement du contentieurx entre les États-Unis d’Amérique et la République Islamique d’Iran, in: AFDI 1981.
    18. Lebullenger, J., L’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce, in: Th. Flory, La Communauté Européenne et le Gatt, Apogée: Paris, 1995.
    19. Lowe, V., U.S. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: “The Helms-Burton and d’Amato Acts”, in: 46 ICLQ 1997.
    20. Lowerfeld, A.F., & B. M. Clagett Agora: The Cuban Liberty and Democratie Solidarity (Libertade) Act, by, in:  AJIL, 1996.
    21. Marceau, G., et Richer, S., La première année de l’Organe de règlement de différends de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce, in : ACDI, 1995.
    22. McDorman, T.L., Unilateralism (Section 301) to Multilateralism (GATT) : Settlement of International Intellectual Property Disputes After the Uruguay Round, in: Stewart, G. (ed.), International Trade and Intellectual Property, New York: Routledge, 1995.
    23. Mitchell, A.D., Sanctions and the World Trade Organization, in: van den Herik, L. (ed), Research handbook on UN sanctions and International law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.
    24. Momtaz, Dj., La Plainte de l’Iran devant le Tribunal des différends irano-américains, in: Dossier Documentaiere préparé par S. Barbier et al., jounnée d’actualité juridiques, vendredi 31 janvier 1997.
    25. Orakhelashvili, A., Sanctions and fundamental rights of states: The case of EU sanctions against Iran and Syria, in: Matthew Happold and paul Eden, Economic Sanctions and International law, Hart publication, 2016.
    26. Pellet, A., Unilateral sanctions and international law, Yearbook of institute of international law, Volume 76, Tallinn Session, Publisher: éditions Pedone, Paris, 2015.
    27. Schoenbaum, T.J., 'The Theory of Contestable Markets in International Trade: A Rationale for "Justifiable" Unilateralism to combat Restrictive Business Practices?', Journal of World Trade, Vol. 30, No. 3, June, 1996.
    28. Shane M. McGee, … Or l’Il Take my Toys and Go Home: The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, 20 HJIL, 1997.
    29. Stern, B., L’exterritorialité revisée, in: AFDI, 1992.
    30. Stern, B., Vers la mondialisation juridiquse? Les lois Helms-Burton et d’Amato-Kennedy, in: RGDIP 1996.
    31. Stern, B., les États-Unis et le droit impérialiste, le Monde du 12 septembre 1996;
    32. Stern, B., De simples “Commentaires” à une “action commune”: La naissance d’une politique juridique communautaire en matière d’extraterritorialité, in: Revue Europe, février 1997.
    33. Stern, B., Can the U.S. Set Rules for the World? A French View, in: journal of World Trade, Vol. 31, No. 4, August 1997. 
    34. Syolander, C.T., Unilateralism and Multilateralism: The U.S. and the Negociation of the GATS, International Journal, XLVIII, Winter 1992-1993, No. 1.
    35. Zecchini, L., L’Europe refuse que Washington santionne des firmes étrangères, Le Monde, 25-26 août 1996.

     

Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 23, Issue 91 - Serial Number 91
December 2020
Pages 81-108

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 August 2020
  • Revise Date: 06 December 2020
  • Accept Date: 15 September 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics