Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T17:58:56.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introductory Remarks Roger Alford

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Roger P. Alford
Roger P. Alford*
Affiliation:
Pepperdine University School of Law; 2002 ASIL Annual Meeting
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The Internationalization of Legal Relations
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 96 , 2002 , pp. 146 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

2 The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900).

3 WTO Appellate Body Report on EC Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R (Sept 9, 1997), available at <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm#1996>; WTO Appellate Body Report on Japan—Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/AB/R (Feb. 22, 1998), available at <http://www.wto.Org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm#1996>.

6 Comprare Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, Case No. ARB(AF)/97/l, para. 103 (Aug. 30,2000), available at <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/3998.pdf> (“expropriation under NAFTA includes . . . covert or incidental interference with the use of property which has the effect of depriving the owner, in whole or in significant part, of the use or reasonably-to-be-expected economic benefit of property. . . .”), with Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Comm’n, 505 U.S. 1003,1015 (1992) (regulatory action is compensable under the Fifth Amendment if it “compel[s] the property owner to suffer a physical ‘invasion’ of his property” or if the “regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.”).

5 Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 266 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2001).

6 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 2 L. Ed. 208 (1804).

7 David Lodge, The British Museum is Falling Down 63 (1965).