Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:36:41.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Andreas F. Lowenfeld

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Andreas F. Lowenfeld
Andreas F. Lowenfeld*
Affiliation:
New York University School of Law
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
Extraterritoriality: Conflict and Overlap in National and International Regulation
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 74 , 1980 , pp. 30 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1980

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 Among the many aspects of this litigation, see, e.g. In re Westinghouse Uranium Contract, [1978] A.C. 547, 606 (House of Lords); In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation 617 F.2 1248 (7th Cir. 1979); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gulf Canada Ltd., Gulf Canada Minerals, Ltd., et al 1980-1; CCH Trade Cases, Par. 63, 285 (Supreme Court of Canada).

2 Protection of Trading Interest Act 1980 c. 11.

3 Government of India v. Taylor [1975] A.C. 491

4 Holman v. Johnson, (1975) 1 Cowp. 341; 98 Engl. Rep. 1120

5 United States v. Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd. 100 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) (liability), 105 F. Supp. 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1052) (relief); British Nylon Spinners, Ltd. v. Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd. [1953] 1 Ch. 10 (C.A.) Interlocutory proceedings); [1955 1 Ch. 37 (plenary proceedings)].

6 See Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326 (2d. Cir. 1972).

7 See Fruehauf v. Massardy, [1968] D.S. Jur. 147, [1965] J.C. 8. II 14, 274 vis (Cour d'Appel, Paris); reproduced in English with narrative of the context in A. LOWENFELD, TRADE CONTROLS FOR POLITICAL ENDS.Ch. I § 3.3-3.4 (1977).

8 See e.g. United States v. Pizzarusso, 388 F.2d (2d cir. 1968).

9 Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S. 2d 743, 191 N.E.2d 279 (1963).

10 31 CRF 535. The Regulations were first published on November 15, 1979 (Effective 8:10 a.m., November 14, 1979).

11 See International Emergency Economic Powers Act, section 201 – 207, 91 Stat. 1626, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706.

12 31 CFR § 535.329.

13 50 U.S.C. App. § 5(b) (1976).

14 An additional argument, to the effect that dollar transactions, wherever based, are recorded through debit and credit entries in New York for the accounts of foreign banks or foreign branches of New York banks, falls away when the issue is application of the regulations to sterling or Deutschmarks or whatever other currency. In fact new dollar deposits of U.S. banks held abroad were unblocked shortly after the initial freeze order. See 31 C.F.R.§ 535.666.

15 To the contrary, Barclays is subject to the Regulations in such a case; i.e., jurisdiction has been asserted. However, as with foreign deposits, U.S.-held dollar “cover” for dollar deposits held for Iran and Iranian entities by foreign banks has been unblocked by general license. See 31 CFR § 535.901.