DOCSLIB.ORG

Guam's Future Political Status: an Argument for Free Association with U.S. Citizenship I. II. A. Guam's Early Days As A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guam's Future Political Status: an Argument for Free Association with U.S. Citizenship I. II. A. Guam's Early Days As A Guam’s Future Political Status: An Argument for Free Association with U.S. Citizenship I. INTRODUCTION II. GUAM’S HISTORY AS A U.S. COLONY AND ITS QUEST FOR U.S. CITIZENSHIP A. Guam’s Early Days as a U.S. Possession B. Guam’s Pursuit of a More Meaningful Status III. THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP A. U.S. Citizenship Generally B. U.S. Citizens of Guam IV. THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO GUAM V. DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. LAW VI. THE POLITICAL STATUS OF FREE ASSOCIATION A. Free Association Generally B. U.S. Examples of Free Association: The Former Trust Territory C. The Case of the U.S. Virgin Islands D. Non-U.S. Examples of Free Association-Type Arrangements 1. Cook Islands-New Zealand 2. Channel Islands-United Kingdom 3. Faroe Islands & Greenland-Denmark 4. Dutch Affiliated Islands in the Caribbean E. Possible Model of Guam-U.S. Free Association VII. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION For more than three hundred years, the island of Guam has been subjected to colonial rule and denied full self-governance.1 Spain claimed Guam in 1565, and established Spanish rule in 1668.2 After the Spanish-American War, Guam’s centuries-long colonizer formally ceded the island to the United States with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris in 1899.3 With the exception of a three-year period during World War II, when Japanese forces occupied Guam (1941 to 1944), the island has since remained under the control of the United States.4 At present, 1 Position Paper of the Task Force on Free Association, The Freely Associated State of Guam in Free Association with The United States of America 1 (Mar. 31, 2000) [hereinafter Position Paper] (unpublished position paper, on file with the Guam Commission on Decolonization and The Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal). 2 STANLEY K. LAUGHLIN, JR., THE LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES AND AFFILIATED JURISDICTIONS 399 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing 1995) [hereinafter LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES]. Guam is the southernmost island in the Marianas chain of islands, in western Micronesia. Id. 3 Position Paper, supra note 1, at 1; LAW OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, supra note 2, at 36-37, 400. 4 Position Paper, supra note 1, at 1; Jon M. Van Dyke et al., Self-Determination for Nonself-governing Peoples and for Indigenous Peoples: The Cases of Guam and Hawai'i, 18 U. HAW. L. REV. 623, 626 (1996) [hereinafter Van Dyke, Self-Determination]. Guam’s Future Political Status 123 this island of U.S. citizens is “one of the oldest colonial dependencies in the world.”5 Currently, Guam is governed by an act of Congress, the Guam Organic Act of 1950.6 The powers given to Guam under the Organic Act, however, are “merely delegated powers that can be changed or taken away at the will of Congress.”7 Guam’s current political status is that of an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States—a territory that has a civil government established by Congress but is not considered to be in transition to statehood.8 The United Sates granted its citizenship to the “native inhabitants”9 of Guam with the signing of the Guam Organic Act; however, those who received their citizenship through this Act do not receive the full protections of the U.S. Constitution.10 Prior to Guam’s gubernatorial election of 1970, the President of the United States appointed Guam’s Governors, without any direct input from the people of the island.11 In 1972, Guam was allowed to elect one non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives, whose function has been little more than to serve as an advocate for Guam with no real power to affect legislation.12 Presently, the Department of Interior has oversight over Guam’s affairs, and the actions of the Governor of Guam are “subject to veto by the . Secretary of the Interior, just as 5 Van Dyke, Self-Determination, supra note 4, at 625. 6 Guam Organic Act, Pub. L. No. 630, 64 Stat. 384 (codified as amended at 48 U.S.C. 1421-1425 (1950)) [hereinafter Guam Organic Act]; PENELOPE BORDALLO HOFSCHNEIDER, A CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS ON THE ISLAND OF GUAM, 1899-1950 155 (Scott Russell ed., 2001) [hereinafter CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS]. Article IV of the Constitution (the Territories Clause) empowers Congress to legislate for territories such as Guam. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2; see also Charles H. Troutman, Partial Disposal Under the Territorial Clause: A More Permanent Status for Territories 4 (July 12, 1996) [hereinafter Troutman, Partial Disposal] (on file with the Guam Commission on Decolonization, the Office of the Compiler of Laws in Guam, and The Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal). 7 Troutman, Partial Disposal, supra note 6, at 4. 8 CAMPAIGN FOR POLITICAL RIGHTS, supra note 6, at 155-56; Jon M. Van Dyke, The Evolving Legal Relationships Between The United States and Its Affiliated U.S.-Flag Islands, 14 U. HAW. L. REV. 445, 449-50 (1992) [hereinafter Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships]. 9 Guam Organic Act, supra note 6. U.S. citizenship was granted to those people born in Guam and there residing on April 11, 1899, and their descendants. Id. While this group was predominantly Chamorro, to use the term Chamorro would be technically imprecise when discussing those whose citizenship stands to be affected should a status change occur. Additionally, the native inhabitants of the islands of Rota, Tinian, and Saipan are also called Chamorro. Interview with Leland Bettis, Former Executive Director, Guam Commission on Decolonization (Jan. 8, 2002). See discussion infra Part III. B; see also infra nn.20 & 25. 10 Van Dyke, Self-Determination, supra note 4, at 626. See discussion infra Part III.B. 11 Id. at 626. 12 Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 469. Guam’s delegate is “allowed to sit on certain committees, can chair these committees or their subcommittees, can introduce legislation, and can vote in the committees or their subcommittees. [The delegate] cannot, however vote when the House meets in plenary session to consider final passage of legislation and budgets.” Id. (emphasis in original). 124 ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2003) local legislation may be overridden by Congress.”13 Hence, despite being ruled by a representative democracy, the people of Guam have no meaningful representation and participation in the process by which the U.S. government continually makes laws and decisions that govern their lives.14 This small island in the western Pacific has been, and continues to be, of great strategic military importance to the United States,15 which may explain why the United States has been reluctant to give up complete control of Guam. During World War II, Guam served as a logistical center for U.S. military operations against the Japanese homeland, thereby contributing significantly to the end of the war in the Pacific.16 The U.S. military also used the island as the major staging area for heavy bombing during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as well as for numerous subsequent military operations.17 After decades of actively seeking a voice in how their island is governed,18 the people of Guam are still pursuing their internationally recognized right to self-determination.19 Currently, the people of Guam continue their efforts to alter their colonial status; a plebiscite for self- 20 determination is expected to take place in Guam in the very near future. 13 TIDES OF HISTORY: THE PACIFIC ISLANDS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 387 (K.R. Howe et al. eds., 1994) [hereinafter TIDES OF HISTORY]. 14 See Van Dyke, Evolving Legal Relationships, supra note 8, at 459. 15 Carl T.C. Gutierrez, An American Colony, WASH. POST, Oct. 9, 1996, at A19 [hereinafter Gutierrez, An American Colony]. Carl T.C. Gutierrez was Governor of Guam from 1995-2003, during which time he additionally served as Chairperson of the Commission on Decolonization. He was also the President of the Guam Constitutional Convention in 1977-79. National Governors Association, http://www.nga.org/governors (last visited Feb. 10, 2003). 16 Id. 17 Id. “When B-52s left Guam for the 33-hour round trip to unleash cruise missiles on targets in southern Iraq on Sept. 6, they were demonstrating more than just the ability of the United States to project global force with little or no allied assistance. The Air Force’s platform, Guam, was yet again legitimized as a vital national security asset, while better-placed allies created ‘no-fly-zones’ of their own for American military aircraft.” Id. 18 For further reading on Guam’s now-defunct pursuit of Commonwealth status, see, for example, Paul Lansing & Peter Hipolito, Guam’s Quest for Commonwealth Status, 5 UCLA ASIAN PAC. AM. L.J. 1 [hereinafter Lansing & Hipolito, Guam’s Quest]. See also Van Dyke, Self-Determination, supra note 4, at 626-29. 19 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, G.A. Res. 1514, U.N. GAOR, 15th Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 66, U.N. Doc. A/4684 (1960) [hereinafter Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples]. 20 Interview with Leland Bettis, Former Executive Director, Guam Commission on Decolonization (Jan. 8, 2002). A plebiscite was anticipated for November 7, 2002, with the “native inhabitants” taking part in the vote. However, the compilation of the Chamorro Registry (certifying those who meet the requirements of “native inhabitants”) is not complete; additionally, some residents of Guam have raised questions as to the legality of having a “native inhabitants” vote (as opposed to a vote open to all residents of Guam).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Organic Act Establishing the Territory of New Mexico
    Organic Act Establishing the Territory of New Mexico (Act of September 9, 1850, 9 Statutes at Large 446, Chapter 49) Sec. 1. Propositions offered state of Texas; boundaries; relinquishment of territorial and other claims The following propositions shall be, and the same hereby are, offered to the state of Texas, which, when agreed to by the said state, in an act passed by the general assembly, shall be binding and obligatory upon the United States, and upon the said state of Texas: provided, the said agreement by the said general assembly shall be given on or before the first day of December, eighteen hundred and fifty: A. the state of Texas will agree that her boundary on the north shall commence at the point at which the meridian of one hundred degrees west from Greenwich is intersected by the parallel of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and shall run from said point due west to the meridian of one hundred and three degrees west from Greenwich; thence her boundary shall run due south to the thirty-second degree of north latitude; thence on the said parallel of thirty-two degrees of north latitude to the Rio Bravo del Norte, and thence with the channel of said river to the gulf of Mexico. B. the state of Texas cedes to the United States all her claim to territory exterior to the limits and boundaries which she agrees to establish by the first article of this agreement. C. the state of Texas relinquishes all claim upon the United States for liability of the debts of Texas, and for compensation or indemnity for the surrender to the United States of her ships, forts, arsenals, customhouses, customhouse revenue, arms and munitions of war and public buildings with their sites, which became the property of the United States at the time of the annexation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • British Columbia 1858
    Legislative Library of British Columbia Background Paper 2007: 02 / May 2007 British Columbia 1858 Nearly 150 years ago, the land that would become the province of British Columbia was transformed. The year – 1858 – saw the creation of a new colony and the sparking of a gold rush that dramatically increased the local population. Some of the future province’s most famous and notorious early citizens arrived during that year. As historian Jean Barman wrote: in 1858, “the status quo was irrevocably shattered.” Prepared by Emily Yearwood-Lee Reference Librarian Legislative Library of British Columbia LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BACKGROUND PAPERS AND BRIEFS ABOUT THE PAPERS Staff of the Legislative Library prepare background papers and briefs on aspects of provincial history and public policy. All papers can be viewed on the library’s website at http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/ SOURCES All sources cited in the papers are part of the library collection or available on the Internet. The Legislative Library’s collection includes an estimated 300,000 print items, including a large number of BC government documents dating from colonial times to the present. The library also downloads current online BC government documents to its catalogue. DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Legislative Library or the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. While great care is taken to ensure these papers are accurate and balanced, the Legislative Library is not responsible for errors or omissions. Papers are written using information publicly available at the time of production and the Library cannot take responsibility for the absolute accuracy of those sources.
    [Show full text]
  • UK and Colonies
    This document was archived on 27 July 2017 UK and Colonies 1. General 1.1 Before 1 January 1949, the principal form of nationality was British subject status, which was obtained by virtue of a connection with a place within the Crown's dominions. On and after this date, the main form of nationality was citizenship of the UK and Colonies, which was obtained by virtue of a connection with a place within the UK and Colonies. 2. Meaning of the expression 2.1 On 1 January 1949, all the territories within the Crown's dominions came within the UK and Colonies except for the Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan and Ceylon (see "DOMINIONS") and Southern Rhodesia, which were identified by s.1(3) of the BNA 1948 as independent Commonwealth countries. Section 32(1) of the 1948 Act defined "colony" as excluding any such country. Also excluded from the UK and Colonies was Southern Ireland, although it was not an independent Commonwealth country. 2.2 For the purposes of the BNA 1948, the UK included Northern Ireland and, as of 10 February 1972, the Island of Rockall, but excluded the Channel Islands and Isle of Man which, under s.32(1), were colonies. 2.3 The significance of a territory which came within the UK and Colonies was, of course, that by virtue of a connection with such a territory a person could become a CUKC. Persons who, prior to 1 January 1949, had become British subjects by birth, naturalisation, annexation or descent as a result of a connection with a territory which, on that date, came within the UK and Colonies were automatically re- classified as CUKCs (s.12(1)-(2)).
    [Show full text]
  • British Overseas Territories Law
    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Comparison of Non-Sovereign Island Territories: the Search for ‘True Equality’
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 43-66 A global comparison of non-sovereign island territories: the search for ‘true equality’ Malcom Ferdinand CNRS, Paris, France [email protected] Gert Oostindie KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] (corresponding author) Wouter Veenendaal KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] Abstract: For a great majority of former colonies, the outcome of decolonization was independence. Yet scattered across the globe, remnants of former colonial empires are still non-sovereign as part of larger metropolitan states. There is little drive for independence in these territories, virtually all of which are small island nations, also known as sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJs). Why do so many former colonial territories choose to remain non-sovereign? In this paper we attempt to answer this question by conducting a global comparative study of non-sovereign jurisdictions. We start off by analyzing their present economic, social and political conditions, after which we assess local levels of (dis)content with the contemporary political status, and their articulation in postcolonial politics. We find that levels of discontent and frustration covary with the particular demographic, socio- economic and historical-cultural conditions of individual territories. While significant independence movements can be observed in only two or three jurisdictions, in virtually all cases there is profound dissatisfaction and frustration with the contemporary non-sovereign arrangement and its outcomes. Instead of achieving independence, the territories’ real struggle nowadays is for obtaining ‘true equality’ with the metropolis, as well as recognition of their distinct cultural identities.
    [Show full text]
  • BOOK BANKRUPTCY of EMPIRE.Pdf
    1 Below is the index of this book by Carlos Marichal and published by Cambridge University Press in 2007. You may visualize the Introduction and chapters 1 and 2. For the rest of the text we recommend you contact Cambridge University Press web site for acquisition in the paperback edition. BANKRUPTCY OF EMPIRE: MEXICAN SILVER AND THE WARS BETWEEN SPAIN, BRITAIN AND FRANCE, 1760-1810 Acknowledgements Introduction: Chapter 1: Resurgence of the Spanish Empire: Bourbon Mexico as Submetropolis, 1763-1800 Chapter 2: An Imperial Tax State: The Fiscal Rigors of Colonialism Chapter 3: Imperial Wars and Loans from New Spain, 1780-1800 Chapter 4: The Royal Church and the Finances of the Viceroyalty Chapter 5: Napoleon and Mexican Silver, 1805-1808 Chapter 6: Between Spain and America: the Royal Treasury and the Gordon/Murphy Consortium, 1806-1808 2 Chapter 7: Mexican Silver for the Cadiz Parliament and the War against Napoleon, 1808-1811 Chapter 8: The Rebellion of 1810, Colonial Debts and Bankruptcy of New Spain Conclusions: The Financial Collapse of Viceroyalty and Monarchy Appendix: Several Tables List of Loans from Colonial Mexico for the Spanish Crown, 1780-1815 List of Loans taken by Spain from Holland with guarantees of payments in Mexican Silver, 1780-1804 Bibliography 3 INTRODUCTION From before the time of Gibbon, historians with a global perspective have been discussing the rise and fall of empires. Today political scientists frequently speak of hegemonic states. If we review some of the best-known studies conducted over the last forty-odd years, it is possible to identify a variety of theoretical approaches adopted by those working on the history of imperial or hegemonic states.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. House of Representatives Hearing Regarding the Admission
    TABLE OF CONTENTS House of Representatives Uashington, D. C. Subcommittee on Territorial February 23, 1960 and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. PAGE Statement of Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii............. ... ............ ....... ...... 4 Statement of J. Monroe Sullivan, Vice President, Pacific American Steamship Association. ......... 10 Statement of Honorable Hiram L. Fong, a United States Senator from the State of Hawaii ....... 17 Statement of Honorable Oren L. Long, a United States Senator from the State of Hawaii.......... 19 Statement of Wilbur K. Watkins, Jr., a Deputy Attorney General of the State of Hawaii ........ 22 Statement of Harold Seidman, Assistant Chief, Office of Management and Organization, Bureau of the Budget (Accompanied by HoWard Schnoor, Management Analyst, Bureau of the Budget, and Mrs. Ruth Van Cleve, Act'ng Assistant Solicitor, Department of the Interior..................... 25 Statement of John F. Donelan, Kahulul Railroad Company, Maui, Hawaii. .............. ......... 67 ,....2~ C i. .E~*L'. ' C" 'i TI'Cyll.-(~ * - . * J~h~i ~rr?~ '---- ~7ur~w--' ley- 1 ttle H. R. 10434, H. R. 10443, E. R. 10456, H. R. 10463, and H. R. 10475 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1960 House of Represontatives, Subcommittee on Terri.orial and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Xnterior and :'Pular Affairs, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:48 a. m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, Honorable Leo W. O'Brien, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. O'Brien, The Subcommittee on Territorial and In- sular Affairs will be in order for hearing on the several bills to amend certain laws of the United States providing for admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union and for other purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • A Stability Pact for the Caucasus in Theory and Practice
    CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES WORKING DOCUMENT NO. 152 SEPTEMBER 2000 A STABILITY PACT FOR THE CAUCASUS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE - A SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE MICHAEL EMERSON NATHALIE TOCCI AND ELENA PROKHOROVA CEPS Working Documents are published to give an early indication of the work in progress within CEPS research programmes and to stimulate reactions from other experts in the field. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the authors in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated. ISBN 92-9079-309-0 © Copyright 2000, Michael Emerson, Nathalie Tocci and Elena Prokhorova A Stability Pact for the Caucasus in Theory and Practice - A Supplementary Note CEPS Working Document No. 152, November 2000 Michael Emerson, Nathalie Tocci & Elena Prokhorova* Abstract In response to appeals of the leaders of the South Caucasus for a Stability Pact for the region, CEPS published in May 2000 a consultative document with a comprehensive proposal (available on www.ceps.be). Subsequently the authors have held extensive consultations with the leaders in all three states of the South Caucasus, and in four of the key autonomies (Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia, Adjaria, Ossetia). The present paper draws together the information and ideas collected during these consultations, although the conclusions are only attributable to the authors. The main argument of the original document is maintained, and strengthened with more precise views on how the conflicts might be solved within the framework of a Stability Pact. However the proposed Stability Pact process could be more than just an approach to conflict resolution. It has systemic or even constitutional aspects, with elements to overcome the transitional problems of the weak state and ease the confrontations of traditional notions such as independence versus territorial integrity, or the choice between federation and confederation, which are part of the present impasse.
    [Show full text]
  • States and Sovereignty in the Middle East: Myths and Realities
    States and sovereignty in the Middle East: myths and realities LOUISE FAWCETT* To many observers the Middle East state system since the Arab uprisings stands at a critical juncture, displaying contradictory patterns of fragility and durability. The uprisings, which started late in 2010, were undoubtedly revolutionary in their initial impact, but beyond Tunisia, it is the counter-revolutionary movement that has proved the more durable.1 The region has witnessed multiple regime changes alongside high levels of popular mobilization, violence and transnational activism. The results have been highly destabilizing, resulting in challenges, not only to regimes, but also to the very sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. This situation, in turn, has contributed to a shifting regional balance of power and repeated episodes of external intervention. Some commentators have argued that the whole regional system, always fragile and contested, is finally undergoing radical transformation; others point to its resilience.2 This article evaluates the latest wave of instability and its consequences for Middle Eastern states, their sovereignty and regional order, introducing themes and discussions taken up in other articles in this special issue. It argues—connecting directly to the article by I. William Zartman3—that despite recent upheavals (and multiple predictions to the contrary), it is likely that the Middle East system of states and borders will remain largely intact—at least in the medium term. This does not mean that states are necessarily ‘strong’ in a Weberian sense, or that sovereignty at different levels is uncontested, but that continuity—state (even regime) survival and border preser- vation—is likely to prevail over major change.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (68 Stat
    76 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 87-420-MAR. 20, 1962 35 SEC. 2. Section 15 of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (68 Stat. 497, 504; 48 U.S.C. 15%) is amended by adding the follow­ ing at the end thereof: "The Governor or Acting Governor may from time to time designate an officer or employee of the executive depart­ ment of the government of the Virgin Islands to act as government secretary for the Virgin Islands in case of a vacancy in the office of the government secretary or the disability or temporary absence of the government secretary or while said government secretary is acting as Governor, and the person so designated shall have all the powere of government secretary so long as such condition continues, except for the power set forth in section 14 of this Act. No additional com- 48 use 1595. pensation shall be paid to any person acting as Governor or as secretary under this Act." Approved March 16, 1962. Public Law 87-420 ^^ ^^^ March 20, 1962 To amend the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act with respect to the [H- R- 8723] method of enforcement and to provide certain additional sanctions, and for other purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may welfare andPen- be cited as the "Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act Amend- sure^A^^t Amend­ ments of 1962". •"*"*« °^ 1962. SEC. 2. The first line of section 3 of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act is amended by striking out" (a)".
    [Show full text]
  • Country Coding Units
    INSTITUTE Country Coding Units v11.1 - March 2021 Copyright © University of Gothenburg, V-Dem Institute All rights reserved Suggested citation: Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, and Lisa Gastaldi. 2021. ”V-Dem Country Coding Units v11.1” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Funders: We are very grateful for our funders’ support over the years, which has made this ven- ture possible. To learn more about our funders, please visit: https://www.v-dem.net/en/about/ funders/ For questions: [email protected] 1 Contents Suggested citation: . .1 1 Notes 7 1.1 ”Country” . .7 2 Africa 9 2.1 Central Africa . .9 2.1.1 Cameroon (108) . .9 2.1.2 Central African Republic (71) . .9 2.1.3 Chad (109) . .9 2.1.4 Democratic Republic of the Congo (111) . .9 2.1.5 Equatorial Guinea (160) . .9 2.1.6 Gabon (116) . .9 2.1.7 Republic of the Congo (112) . 10 2.1.8 Sao Tome and Principe (196) . 10 2.2 East/Horn of Africa . 10 2.2.1 Burundi (69) . 10 2.2.2 Comoros (153) . 10 2.2.3 Djibouti (113) . 10 2.2.4 Eritrea (115) . 10 2.2.5 Ethiopia (38) . 10 2.2.6 Kenya (40) . 11 2.2.7 Malawi (87) . 11 2.2.8 Mauritius (180) . 11 2.2.9 Rwanda (129) . 11 2.2.10 Seychelles (199) . 11 2.2.11 Somalia (130) . 11 2.2.12 Somaliland (139) . 11 2.2.13 South Sudan (32) . 11 2.2.14 Sudan (33) .
    [Show full text]