Foreign Policy and International Law

When the Yugoslav government refused to sign the American-drafted peace accord for Kosovo, and after repeated warnings to Yugoslavia, NATO forces have begun an aerial bombing campaign against Yugoslav military targets. The question arises whether international law permits the use of armed force against Yugoslavia under these circumstances. 

In a long-awaited decision confronting the intersection of federalism and foreign relations, the Supreme Court has struck down a Massachusetts law restricting state purchases from companies doing business in Burma. The Court's June 19 ruling in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council was on narrow, non-constitutional grounds. Although the decision puts similar state and local anti-Burma measures at least temporarily on ice, it is unlikely to emerge as the final word on foreign policymaking by state and local actors.

 

President Bush, on April 25, announced that he would not grant safeguard relief from imports of Chinese wire garment hangers requested by the US industry under Section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974.1 In doing so the President rejected a unanimous recommendation from the US International Trade Commission that duties be raised for a three-year period.2 This is the second time relief has been sought under Section 421, and the second time relief has been denied by the Bush Administration.3

 

Background