DOCSLIB.ORG

CHAPTER 7 International Organizations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CHAPTER 7 International Organizations Table of Contents CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................................. 215 International Organizations ..................................................................................................... 215 A. UNITED NATIONS .......................................................................................................... 215 1. Upholding International Law while Maintaining International Peace and Security ........ 215 2. Rule of Law...................................................................................................................... 217 3. Charter Committee ........................................................................................................... 218 B. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ................................................................... 220 1. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States) ..................... 220 2. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. United States) ................................................................. 227 3. Relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States) ..................... 234 4. Request for Advisory Opinion on the British Indian Ocean Territory ............................ 235 C. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION .................................................................... 251 1. ILC Draft Conclusions on the Identification of Customary International Law ............... 251 2. ILC’s Work at its 70th Session ......................................................................................... 259 D. REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS .................................................................................... 268 1. Organization of American States ..................................................................................... 268 a. Venezuela ..................................................................................................................... 268 b. Nicaragua ..................................................................................................................... 274 c. Migration ...................................................................................................................... 280 2. OAS: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“IACHR”) ................................. 282 a. Case No. 10.573 (Salas) ............................................................................................... 283 b. Igartua et al. (Four Million American Citizen Residents of Puerto Rico), Case No. 13.154 and Rosselló et al., Case No. 13.326 ....................................................................... 284 c. Petition No. P-1756-10, Ismael Estrada ................................................................... 286 d. Petition No. P-1307-12, David Johnson ................................................................... 289 e. Petition No. MC-505-18 (Antonio Bol Paau) and Petition No. MC-731-18 (Migrant Children) .............................................................................................................................. 294 f. Hearings ....................................................................................................................... 297 g. Decision in Case No. 12.958-A, Bucklew .................................................................... 309 Cross References ....................................................................................................................... 311 CHAPTER 7 International Organizations A. UNITED NATIONS 1. Upholding International Law while Maintaining International Peace and Security On May 17, 2018, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Nikki Haley addressed a UN Security Council open debate on upholding international law within the context of the maintenance of international peace and security. Her remarks are excerpted below and available at https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-a-un-security- council-open-debate-on-upholding-international-law-within-the-context-of-the- maintenance-of-international-peace-and-security/. ___________________ * * * * Even though this is a debate about international law, it’s worth stepping back to think about what the people who wrote the UN Charter set out to create. The preamble of the Charter begins, “We the peoples of the United Nations,” echoing the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “We the people of the United States.” Joining the United Nations is an act of sovereign peoples who came together to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small…” In this way, the Charter makes a clear connection between respecting human rights and upholding and promoting peace. Respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual is fundamental to international law. It is also fundamental to the founding values of the United States. Our longstanding national commitment to human rights is why the United States made human rights a key theme of our last presidency of the Security Council. Durable peace cannot be separated from respect of human rights. In the last year, the United States has championed a number of efforts to highlight this connection. We’ve emphasized the connection between the 215 216 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW way the Iranian, Syrian, Venezuelan, and North Korean regimes treat their citizens and the threat to peace and security these governments pose internationally. The Security Council has also recognized the connection between human rights and peace. We mandate many of the Council’s peacekeeping and political missions to promote human rights and report on human rights violations and abuses. In many places, these missions are the first to know about human rights violations and abuses. We need to support these missions and ensure they fulfil their role to protect human dignity. A related issue is the obligations of Member States under international humanitarian law. Here, too, the Security Council has never been clearer about what we expect from parties of conflict. The Council has adopted resolutions and statements on the protection of civilians, children in armed conflict, medical neutrality, and famine in armed conflict. Many of our resolutions addressing conflicts include a demand for unfettered humanitarian access. Many of our sanctions regimes allow for the listing of individuals or groups that obstruct that humanitarian aid. The Security Council has been increasingly outspoken and demanding of respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. This is important. But the challenge that remains is a familiar one: following through. Human rights violations and abuses and humanitarian needs have only increased on our watch. And our response has been completely inadequate. Some argue that the Security Council has no business in a nation’s domestic disputes. A nation’s sovereignty, they argue, prevents any outside action, even when people are suffering and abused, and even when that nation’s neighbors feel the consequences. We, too, recognize and cherish our sovereignty and the sovereignty of other nations. But here’s the thing: joining the United Nations, and pledging to abide by the words of its Charter, is the act of sovereign peoples, of sovereign nations. It is an act that is freely chosen. Governments cannot use sovereignty as a shield when they commit mass atrocities, proliferate weapons of mass destruction, or perpetrate acts of terrorism. In these instances, the Security Council must be prepared to act. That’s why we’re here. That’s why the Council has such wide-ranging authority to impose sanctions, establish tribunals, or authorize the use of force. We have these tools because the people who drafted the Charter realized that there might be times when the Council needs to resort to its broad authority under Chapter VII. And it’s the inability of the Council to follow up, especially when it comes to human rights and humanitarian issues, that allows suffering to continue. And it is the inability to act that erodes our credibility and makes it more likely that more people will suffer in the future. I again thank the President of Poland for calling this critical debate. There are so many places in the world where human dignity and well-being are under assault today. There is so much more good work that we could be doing. As I mentioned earlier, the reasons for our failures are often obvious. But the Security Council’s continued paralysis in the face of so much suffering is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to all of us. We’ve accepted this mandate. We have the tools necessary to follow through. The time has come to recall the fundamental purpose of the United Nations, and for the sovereign peoples who make up the United Nations to come together to take meaningful action to fulfill it. * * * * 217 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 2. Rule of Law On October 8, 2018, Julian Simcock, Deputy Legal Adviser for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations delivered remarks at a meeting of the Sixth Committee on “Agenda Item 86: Rule of Law at the National and International Levels.” His remarks are excerpted below and available at https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-a-meeting-of-the-sixth- committee-on-agenda-item-86-rule-of-law-at-the-national-and-international-levels/. ___________________ * * * * The United States would like to thank the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions As Countermeasures for Wrongful Acts
    The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions as Countermeasures for Wrongful Acts Lori Fisler Damrosch* INTRODUCTION This essay offers aN iNstallmeNt of what would have beeN a coNtiNuiNg conversation with David D. Caron, a close colleague in the field of international law, oN themes that eNgaged both of us across multiple phases of our intersecting careers. The issues are fundamental ones for both the theory and the practice of internatioNal law, involving such core coNcerns as how iNterNatioNal law caN be enforced in an international system that is not yet adequately equipped with institutioNs to determine the existeNce aNd coNsequeNces of violatioNs or to impose saNctioNs against violators; aNd how to eNsure that self-help enforcement measures iN a largely deceNtralized aNd still iNcomplete system are coNsisteNt with the priNciples aNd values uNderlyiNg the iNterNatioNal legal order. David CaroN was uNiquely positioNed to speak aNd write oN these issues, Not oNly with a mature scholar’s authority, but also with the authoritativeness conferred by the judicial appointmeNts he held in receNt years aNd the cases oN which he would have deliberated and rendered judgments, but for his untimely death. Without his eloquent voice to provide wisdom aNd reach decisioNs iN the coNtext of coNcrete disputes, I venture still-evolving thoughts on what may well seem unanswerable questions. The topic of ecoNomic saNctioNs as couNtermeasures for iNterNatioNally wroNgful acts provides the opportuNity to revisit questioNs that I eNcouNtered for the first time as a braNd-new international lawyer in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. DepartmeNt of State; these questioNs would later eNgage David CaroN’s iNterest as well.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use
    The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Updated July 14, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45618 SUMMARY R45618 The International Emergency Economic Powers July 14, 2020 Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Christopher A. Casey, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad Coordinator authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national Analyst in International emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at Trade and Finance the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions Ian F. Fergusson are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a Specialist in International declared emergency. Trade and Finance Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 Dianne E. Rennack to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First Specialist in Foreign Policy World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a Legislation national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means Jennifer K. Elsea to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block Legislative Attorney international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • CRACKDOWN on DISSENT Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela
    CRACKDOWN ON DISSENT Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Crackdown on Dissent Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela Copyright © 2017 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-35492 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit: http://www.hrw.org The Foro Penal (FP) or Penal Forum is a Venezuelan NGO that has worked defending human rights since 2002, offering free assistance to victims of state repression, including those arbitrarily detained, tortured, or murdered. The Penal Forum currently has a network of 200 volunteer lawyers and more than 4,000 volunteer activists, with regional representatives throughout Venezuela and also in other countries such as Argentina, Chile, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, and the USA. Volunteers provide assistance and free legal counsel to victims, and organize campaigns for the release of political prisoners, to stop state repression, and increase the political and social cost for the Venezuelan government to use repression as a mechanism to stay in power.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Reference
    Thesis The role of national courts in applying international humanitarian law: from apology to judicial activism WEILL, Sharon Abstract My PhD aims to set a method of analysis evaluating the manner in which national courts enforce international humanitarian law in light of the core principles of the international rule of law (which require courts to be independent, impartial, accessible and effective). This methodology offers a useful tool for understanding the function of national courts and provides a mapping of courts' rulings, within which each category can then be legally (and politically) justified or delegitimized in light of the principles of the rule of law. The scale according to which the court's function is assessed varies from apology to judicial activism, and it identifies four functional roles: (1) the apologist role of courts, in which they serve as a legitimating agency of the state's actions; (2) the avoiding role of courts, in which they, for policy considerations, avoid exercising jurisdiction over a case; (3) the normative application role of courts, in which they apply international humanitarian law as required by the rule of law. In that category, a deferral technique is identified – courts may defer back to the other branches of [...] Reference WEILL, Sharon. The role of national courts in applying international humanitarian law: from apology to judicial activism. Thèse de doctorat : Univ. Genève, 2012, no. D. 852 URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-235753 DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:23575 Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:23575 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2019 Remarks on the Situation In
    Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2019 Remarks on the Situation in Venezuela at Florida International University in Miami, Florida February 18, 2019 The First Lady. Thank you. It is wonderful to be here today in the beautiful city of Miami. The President and I are honored to stand with all of you as we together support the people— great people—of Venezuela. I'm proud to be here with you in the United States of America as your First Lady. Many of you in the room know what it feels like to be blessed with freedom after living under the oppression of socialism and communism. In Venezuela, the people are on the brink of reclaiming their own liberty. Today we must let the Venezuelan people hear us all with one united voice. There is hope, we are free, and we pray together loudly and proudly that soon the people of Venezuela will be free as well. My husband is here today because he cares deeply about the current suffering in Venezuela. This afternoon he has an important message to share. Ladies and gentlemen, it is now my pleasure to introduce my husband and the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. The President. Thank you very much, Melania. America is truly blessed to have such a—an extraordinary—right? Extraordinary First Lady. She's extraordinary. She really is. She cares about people. Hello, Miami. I am thrilled to be back in the State I love with so many proud, freedom- loving patriots. We're here to proclaim, a new day is coming in Latin America.
    [Show full text]
  • Ccg-Nlud-Technology-And-National
    CENTRE FOR COMMUNICATION GOVERNANCE AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY LAW AND POLICY SEMINAR COURSE (FEBRUARY - JUNE 2020) B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) PROGRAMME NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI Course Facilitator Gunjan Chawla Programme Manager, Technology and National Security, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi; email: [email protected] ABOUT THE COURSE Given the rapidly evolving landscape of international security issues and the challenges and opportunities presented by new and emerging technologies, Indian lawyers and policymakers need to acquire the capacity to engage effectively with national security law and policy. However, curricula in Indian law schools do not engage adequately with issues of national security. National security threats, balance of power, issues of secrecy and political accountability, terrorism and surveillance laws tend to be discussed in a piece-meal manner within various courses or electives. To fill this knowledge gap within the legal community, the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi (CCG-NLU) is offering this seminar course to fourth and fifth-year students of the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Programme. The course will explore interdisciplinary approaches in the study of national security law and policy, with a particular focus on issues in cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. Through this course curriculum, we aim to (1) recognize and develop National Security Law as a discrete discipline of legal studies, and (2) impart
    [Show full text]
  • OAS Working Group to Address the Regional Crisis Caused by Venezuela’S Migrant and Refugee Flows
    OAS Working Group to Address the Regional Crisis Caused by Venezuela’s Migrant and Refugee Flows Report June 2019 OAS Cataloging-in-Publication Data Organization of American States. Working Group to Address the Regional Crisis Caused by Venezuelan Migrant and Refugee Flows. Final Report of the OAS Working Group to Address the Venezuelan Migrant and Refugee Crisis in the Region. p. ; cm. (OAS. Official records ; OEA/Ser.D/XV.21) ISBN 978-0-8270-6915-2 1. Venezuela--Emigration and immigration. 2. America--Emigration and immigration. 3. Refugees-- America. 4. Refugees--Venezuela. I. Organization of American States. General Secretariat. II. Working Group to Address the Regional Crisis Caused by Venezuelan Migrant and Refugee Flows. III. Title. IV. Series. OEA/Ser.D/XV.21 WORKING GROUP: David Smolansky: Coordinator Gastão Toledo: Co-coordinator Dany Bahar: Independent Expert James Hollified: Independent Expert Luisa Marín: Research Manager WITH SUPPORT FROM: Marianella Herrera - Cuenca Irene Loreto VOLUNTEERS: Marisela Castillo Leticia Chacón Ernesto Romero Gianinna Romero This report is published thanks to the financial support of the Republic of Korea. © (2019) Organization of American States. All rights reserved under the International and Pan American Conventions. No portion of the content of this material may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, nor by any electronic or any other mean, totally or partially, without the express consent of the Organization. Editing, design and printing: Sigma Editores S.A.S - [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— BANK MELLI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL BENNETT, et al., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— LISA W. BOHL JEFFREY A. LAMKEN MOLOLAMKEN LLP ROBERT K. KRY 300 N. LaSalle St. Counsel of Record Chicago, Illinois 60654 MOLOLAMKEN LLP (312) 450-6700 The Watergate, Suite 660 600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 556-2000 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner :,/621(3(635,17,1*&2,1&± ±:$6+,1*721'& QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) provides that “the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party)” are subject to execution to satisfy certain terrorism judgments. 28 U.S.C. §1610 note §201(a). In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit allowed plaintiffs with default judgments against Iran to execute against funds that Visa owes to Bank Melli, an Iranian state-owned bank. It did so even though Visa rather than Bank Melli is the owner of the assets, and even though Bank Melli is a separate entity distinct from the Iranian government that had no role in the underlying disputes. The questions presented are: 1. Whether TRIA requires that the respondent actu- ally own the assets at issue, as the D.C. Circuit has held and as the United States has repeatedly urged, or whether the statute instead permits execution even absent owner- ship, as the Ninth Circuit held below.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming Democracy
    RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY GLOBAL PHILANTHROPY FORUM CONFERENCE SAN FRANCISCO BAY | APRIL 1–3 RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY GLOBAL PHILANTHROPY FORUM CONFERENCE APRIL 1–3, 2 19 SAN FRANCISCO BAY 2019 Global Philanthropy Forum Conference This book includes transcripts from the plenary sessions and keynote conversations of the 2019 Global Philanthropy Forum Conference. The statements made and views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of GPF, its participants, World Affairs or any of its funders. Minor adjustments have been to remarks for clarity. In general, we have sought to preserve the tone of these panels to give the reader a sense of the Conference. The Conference would not have been possible without the support of our partners and members listed below, as well as the dedication of the wonderful team at World Affairs. Special thanks go to the GPF team— Meghan Kennedy, Angelina Donhoff, Suzy Antounian, Claire McMahon, Carla Thorson, Julia Levin, Taytum Sanderbeck, Jarrod Sport, Laura Beatty, Sylvia Hacaj, Isaac Mora, and Lucia Johnson Seller—for their work and dedication to the GPF, its community and its mission. STRATEGIC PARTNERS Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Anonymous Newman’s Own Foundation The Rockefeller Foundation The David & Lucile Packard Margaret A. Cargill Foundation Foundation Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation Sall Family Foundation World Bank Group SUPPORTING MEMBERS African Development Fund MEMBERS The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley William Draper III Charitable Trust Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation Conrad N. Hilton Foundation Felipe Medina Humanity United Inter-American Development Bank International Finance Corporation MacArthur Foundation The MasterCard Foundation The Global Philanthropy Forum is a project of World Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN V
    Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice 231. CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) [PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS] Summary of the judgment of 13 February 2019 On 13 February 2019, the International Court of Justice rendered its Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the United States of America in the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The Court was composed as follows: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Gaja, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa; Judges ad hoc Brower, Momtaz; Registrar Couvreur. * * * History of the proceedings (paras. 1-17) The Court recalls that, on 14 June 2016, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereinafter “Iran” or the “Applicant”) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America (hereinafter the “United States” or the “Respondent”) with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violations by the United States of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, which was signed by the two States in Tehran on 15 August 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957 (hereinafter the “Treaty of Amity” or “Treaty”). The Court notes that, in its Application, Iran seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity. The Court further recalls that, after Iran filed its Memorial in the case, the United States raised preliminary objections to the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice
    The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 20 (2021) 395–441 brill.com/lape Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice Fernando Lusa Bordin Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK [email protected] Abstract The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. Those developments comprise jurisdiction ratione materiae under compromissory clauses; procedural preconditions in compromissory clauses; expert opinions; admissibility challenges based on abuse of process and the “clean hands” doctrine; conditions for the indication of provisional measures; and the Court’s discretion to give advisory opinions in cases where a request overlaps with a dispute between States. Keywords International Court of Justice – compromissory clause – jurisdiction ratione materiae – admissibility – abuse of process – “clean hands” doctrine 1 Introduction The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. The Court had the occasion to consider several procedural matters in its judg- ments on preliminary objections in Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), © Fernando Lusa Bordin, 2021 | doi:10.1163/15718034-12341451 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com09/28/2021 02:39:38PM via free access 396 Bordin Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Report
    2018 ANNUAL REPORT On the Cover The Victims of Communism Memorial statue is modeled on the Goddess of Democracy statue erected in Tiananmen Square by peaceful pro-democracy student protestors in 1989. The statue was dedicated by President George W. Bush on June 12, 2007. It was the world’s first memorial dedicated to every victim of communism and stands in sight of the US Capitol, at the corner of New Jersey and Massachusetts Avenues, Northwest. 2 A world free from the false hope of communism. To educate future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of communism. Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an educational and human rights nonprofit organization authorized by a unanimous Act of Congress signed as Public Law 103-199 by President William J. Clinton on December 17, 1993. From 2003 to 2009, President George W. Bush was Honorary Chairman. On June 12, 2007, he dedicated the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, DC. 1 A YEAR of ACHIEVEMENTS 2018 IN REVIEW In 2018, a rising generation of Americans warmed to socialism as the territory of the free world shrank. Communist regimes from China to Cuba continued to project power and interfere abroad while persecuting millions of their own people at home, even as former captive nations grappled with the bitter legacy of Soviet occupation. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation worked tirelessly in 2018 to teach the truth about the failures of Marxist ideology, to pursue justice for those still striving for freedom under communist regimes, and to honor the memory of the more than 100 million victims of communism.
    [Show full text]