Throughout Donald Trump's presidential campaign and into the first months of his presidency, he has warned that the United States' commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) may depend on whether its partner states increase their defense spending in line with previously adopted guidelines. While senior administration officials have reaffirmed U.S. commitments to the NATO alliance, including the North Atlantic Treaty's mutual defense obligation on several occasions, President Trump himself did not so until mid-June. Separately, the Trump administration signaled its support for NATO by supporting the admission of Montenegro as a new member state.

With the Trump administration's reimposition of financial sanctions on Iran, the power of the weaponized dollar is yet again making headlines—and putting distance between the United States and its allies. The dollar's special status as the world's key currency affords the United States an unrivaled sanctioning power. Because access to dollars is a near-necessity for multinational businesses and financial institutions, the United States can unilaterally impose costly sanctions by denying such access to a target—whether a state, company, or individual. This capability is one form of the “exorbitant privilege” afforded to the United States by the dollar's international role. This essay considers why the dollar's status affords the United States this sanctioning power and how the United States exercises it. I first summarize the nature of the dollar's role. Next, I explain the means by which the United States has weaponized that role, especially through financial sanctions. I conclude by offering some potential limitations on that power and exploring the ways in which other countries might seek to erode it.

On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of India issued a rare, unanimous nine-judge decision holding that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution of India. The case is all the more noteworthy because the Court reversed its prior decisions holding that the right to privacy was not protected by the country's Constitution. It arose out of the government's creation of a national database of biometric and demographic information for every Indian. Rejecting the government's arguments, the Court found that the right to privacy applies across the gamut of “fundamental” rights including equality, dignity (Article 14), speech, expression (Article 19), life, and liberty (Article 21). The six separate and concurring judgments in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Ret'd) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors are trailblazing for their commitment to privacy as a fundamental freedom and for the judges’ use of foreign law across jurisdictions and spanning centuries.

On March 7, 1995, Conoco oil company of Houston, Texas, announced that it had entered into a contract with Iran to have a Netherlands-based affiliate assist in the development of the Sirri Island oil field. In response, the Clinton administration issued Executive Order No. 12,957, prohibiting participation by U.S. entities in the development of Iranian petroleum resources. Eventually, Conoco withdrew from its contract, but in early May of 1995 the administration stepped up its pressure on Iran by issuing Executive Order No. 12,959, prohibiting U.S. entities from using foreign entities they owned or controlled to make investments in or conduct trade transactions with Iran. On July 13 of that year, the French oil company Total S.A. entered into an agreement with Iran to replace Conoco in developing the Sirri Island field, and over the next several months Iran struck nearly a dozen petroleum development agreements worth in excess of $50 million each with other foreign oil companies. Within a couple of months, both Houses of the U.S. Congress took up consideration of proposals to complicate Iran’s ability to develop its hydrocarbon resources. By the end of 1995, the proposals, which even extended to wholly foreign entities organized and operating outside the United States, had come to include Libya as well. Final passage of one of the proposals, specifically, H.R. 3107, took place in the Senate and the House in July 1996. It was signed into law as the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) on August 5.

The Treaty of Peace concluded in Paris between the United States and Spain on December 10, 1898, ending the Spanish-American war, provided in Article III that “Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands and comprehending the islands lying within the following lines…” In another treaty concluded between the same countries on November 7, 1900, it was provided in the Sole Article that

Public Prosecutor v. Ashby. Judgment No. 161/98.

Court of Trento, Italy, July 13, 1998.

On February 3, 1998, a U.S. Marine EA-6B aircraft, redeployed at Aviano air base as part of Operation Deliberate Guard in support of the multinational Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia, was on a low-level training mission over northern Italy when it severed the wires of the cable car at the Cermis ski resort near Cavalese, causing the deaths of twenty people. Because the exercise of criminal action is mandatory under Article 112 of the Italian Constitution, the public prosecutor decided that he had to institute preliminary investigations immediately, with a view to determining whether to prosecute. On July 13, 1998, an Italian judge, in a preliminary hearing, rejected the prosecutor's request that seven U.S. servicemen stand trial for the cable-car accident. The judge found that, under Article VII, paragraph 3(a) (ii) of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (NATO SOFA), the United States, as the sending state, had the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over the case and that jurisdiction had not been waived. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the case.

Whether or not it was possible at the time for those who framed the treaties which terminated the World War of 1914–1918 to have better provided for the years of peace which were to follow, it is now generally recognized that the terms agreed upon by the Allied Powers and imposed upon Germany were not as wise as they might have been. This is a conclusion which experience has demonstrated, and, from this experience, it is proper that nations should derive wisdom with regard to any future treaties of peace which may be entered into. Hence it is that, since the outbreak of the present European war, there has been much discussion as to what terms should be imposed upon Germany if and when she is compelled to sue for peace.

Substantial contributions to the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice were made during its twenty-eighth year—in two judgments in the Corfu Channel Case, and in an advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. The prospect for the greater activity of the Court improved notably during the year, as a result of the institution of proceedings in three contested cases—between the United Kingdom and Norway, France and Egypt, and Colombia and Peru, respectively; and as a result of three requests emanating from the General Assembly for advisory opinions—concerning questions arising under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania; the competence of the General Assembly to admit new Members of the United Nations; and the international status of South West Africa. On the other hand, the year has not been marked by a great increase in the jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Article 36 (2) of the Statute or otherwise.

The International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations held its fifty-eighth session in Geneva from May 1 to June 9, and from July 3 to August 11, 2006. This was the final year of the Commission's most recent five-year term (or quinquennium), and it finished work on several topics by completing sets of draft articles on diplomatic protection, principles on international liability for transboundary harm, “guiding principles” on unilateral acts, and conclusions on fragmentation of international law. The Commission also completed its first reading of articles on transboundary aquifers; continued its work on reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, and the effect of armed conflict on treaties; began its consideration of the obligation to extradite or prosecute and the expulsion of aliens; and added a variety of new topics to its long-term program.