Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:16:30.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Marian Nash Leich*
Affiliation:
Department of State

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1983

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 22 C.F.R. §7.2(b).

2 The footnotes to the memorandum are renumbered here and some are omitted.

3 Restatement 2d, Judgments §19, Comment a.

4 Id., at §20.

5 Berman v. United States, 378 U.S. 530 (1964); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice §204.02[1].

6 2 Davis at 606.

7 8 FAM 225.13–225.16 (1970).

8 387 U.S. at 268.

9 Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566–67 (1913). See also Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court observed that: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” 118 U.S. at 442.

10 Attorney General’s Statement of Interpretation Concerning Expatriation of United States Citizens, 42 Op. Atty. Gen. 397 (Jan. 18, 1969).

11 42 Op. Atty. Gen. at 398–401.

12 444 U.S. at 260.

13 Dept. of State File Nos. P83 0013–0749, 0013–0750.