{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

quick case reviews for 2nd test

quick case reviews for 2nd test - TINOCO o Great Britain...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TINOCO o Great Britain claiming that 1) successor government keep original concessions and 2) Tinoco government was only government of Costa Rica de fact and de jure for 2 yrs and 9 months and therefore cannot avoid responsibility o British argue that law of nullities don’t apply. Successive government is bound by international law to follow old treaties and agreements o Costa Rica says Tinoco government not legit, and therefore, the new government is not the correct successive government o Taft first rules that as a matter of international law, government still bound by predecessor no matter how predecessor got power. However, after Taft rules this, he keeps going and ends up ruling against British… o Taft Tinoco doesn’t follow its own constitution, therefore the contract is not void Interestingly enough, one could argue Taft rules on an argument that Costa Rica didn’t really mention… o LEGACY: Change in government does not matter, a successive government is still bound HAILE SELASSIE o See how each judge thinks different and decides differently for the same opinion o Ethiopia is recognized by Great Britain (GB), but since Italy had control Ethiopia, it was considered de facto government by GB o Judge Bennett 1 st opinion: Handles this by saying this is claim by foreign sov and Italy has sovereignty. No Jurisdiction. No rule against foreign sov. (?) 2 nd opinion: After appellate court says something, he says that the de facto government not able to oust de jure government of its claim. o Progression of case: To GB, HS still de jure regime, goes to appeal much later when Italy seen in diff light, Italy is then considered de jure government and HS screwed o LEGACY: Illustrates de jure and de facto and how de jure trumps CHINA o Certain governments cannot sue because they are not de jure because they are not recogzd by US as so o But because of envoy sent to China and the executive saw an ambassador implied (treaty of commerce) or maybe even expressed recognition by ambassador being received.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
o LEGACY: de facto/de jure historical thing could have relevance. Also, recognition not necessarily expressed, may be implied PALMAS o Subject of dispute is sovereignty over Palmas Island (or Miangas) betwn US and Netheralnds o Two theories: discovery (US) treaty/use o When you discover, gives you incohit (sp?) title
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}