No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Correspondence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Extract
In the January 1961 issue of this Journal, there appeared, over my name, a Comment entitled When Extradition Fails, Is Abduction the Solution? The Comment dealt with the frustration of efforts to effect the extradition to Yugoslavia of Andrija Artukovic, a leader of the Croation “state” established in Yugoslavia under Nazi sponsorship during World War II. Artukovic had been charged with the kilting of hundreds of thousands of victims guilty only of ethnic diversity. He had fled to the United States in 1948. The Comment remarked that, in view of the atrocities attributed to Artukovic, “[i]t would hardly be incredible if a group of Serbs, inspired by hatred, revenge and patriotism, should try to emulate the ‘volunteers’ who successfully contrived to move Adolph Eichmann from his refuge in Argentina to a prison in Israel.” The Comment concluded that “it must be our position that the only acceptable way to deal with fugitive war criminals is through orderly processes of international law and extradition.”
- Type
- Notes and Comments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1986
References
1 Maviglia, , Mexico’s Guidelines for Foreign Investment: The Selective Promotion of Necessary Industries, 80 AJIL 281 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 National Foreign Investment Commission of Mexico, Guidelines for Foreign Investment and Objectives for its Promotion (1984); see also Heavy Industry, Computer Firms Named: Mexico Invites Foreign Investors, Wash. Post, Feb. 27, 1984, §C, at 3, col. 1.
3 Maviglia, supra note 1, at 304.
4 For a survey of FTZs throughout the world, see, e.g., Diamond, W. & Diamond, D., New Tax-Free Trade Zones of the World (1977)Google Scholar. On FTZs in the United States, see Herrick, , Foreign Trade Zones—Free Trade Benefits, Fla. B.J. 416 (1982)Google Scholar.
5 When the Foreign Investment Law was enacted in 1973, the BIP and FTZs were exempted from its provisions.
6 First announced in 1965, the program was finally codified in regulations of Mar. 17, 1972. Regulation of Paragraph Third of Article 321 of the Customs Code of Mexico of Mar. 17, 1971, D.O., Oct. 31, 1972.
7 There are several American articles that have followed the BIP. See, e.g., Trevino, , Border Industrialization Program: Legal Guidelines/or the Foreign Investor, 4 J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 89 (1974)Google Scholar; Treviño, , Mexico: The Present Status of Legislation and Governmental Policies on Direct Foreign Investments, 18 Int’l Law. 297 (1984)Google Scholar.
8 See Christman, , Border Industries Foster New Jobs, More Experts, Mex.-Am. Rev., Feb 1968, at 9 Google Scholar; Big Deal at the Border, Newsweek, Jan. 24, 1972, at 59.
9 A policy whereby emphasis is placed upon production of goods that replace ones being imported for domestic consumption.
* U.S. Department of Justice; Adjunct Professor, Antioch School of Law; Assistant Editor, International Legal Materials.
An elaboration of this response can be found in Bettwy, , Mexico’s Development: Foreign Trade Zones and Direct Foreign Investment, 22 Comp. Jurid. Rev. 49 (1985)Google Scholar.
1 D.O., Aug. 15, 1983. See aslo Maviglia, , Mexico’s Guidelines for Foreign Investment: The Selective Promotion of Necessary Industries, 80 AJIL 281, 285 n.57 (1986)Google Scholar.
2 Maviglia, supra note 1, at 285 n.57.
3 D.O., Aug. 15, 1983.
4 Id.
5 Actually, there are a great many others, but my article addressed one and Mr. Bettwy’s response another.
6 National Foreign Investment Commission of Mexico, Foreign Investments, Juridical Framework and its Application 24(1984) (emphasis added); see also Maviglia, supra note 1, at 295 and passim.