Talk:Helms-Burton Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Helms-Burton Act is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of High priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba. | |
|
Cuba To-do:
|
||
The article has nothing on former American-citizen-owed properties that were expropriated without compensation, but I understand that that was an important part of the Helms-Burton act... AnonMoos 14:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The connection between the "brothers to the rescue" missions and the Helms Burton act needs clarifying and defining. At present it reads like a spurious connection.--Zleitzen 12:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Was this bill signed by Clinton or was it Vetoed and overwritten? What date was it signed? EW
Question: I thought that this law has been quietly "waived" every six months by Clinton, then by the current Bush, by a provision in the law that allows this? So, instead of entirely killing the law because of the controversy, it is just ignored? I don't have a citation for this, but it was mentioned by my history professor at UCI. Anyone want to check? (Aimee I.)
[edit] Impact of Council Regulation (No 2271/96)
I would like to see support for the statment that "given the relative sizes of the economies of the EU and United States", Council Regulation (No 2271/96) "practically neutered the Act within the EU." Lawyer2b 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reactions
The opening paragraph of this sentence contains a statement that reads: "The law contained provisions that sought to punish non-U.S. companies for engaging in trade with Cuba, which governments and businesses in other countries argued run counter to the spirit of international law and sovereignty"
If I'm not mistaken however, the legislation's point isn't to punish companies for engaging in trade with Cuba, but to punish companies who are engaging in trade via properties confiscated by the Cuban government. If that's correct, than the current statement would be very factual. I'm going to check on this. Does anyone else have some info to clarify that?
let me restate the above: If I'm not mistaken however, the legislation's point isn't to punish companies for engaging in trade with Cuba, but to punish companies who are engaging in trade via properties confiscated by the Cuban government. If that's correct, than the current statement would be rather misleading . . .
- You're right, I've amended the page to reflect that point. Thanks.--Zleitzen 01:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think going further, one might also point out that it isn't simply properties confiscated from U.S. citizens but that it also covers properties seized from cuban citizens who are now US nationals or citiziens. I don't know, this might be silly semantics . . . cheers.
This law, and laws similar to it are a topic of major concern in Canada. This is called "extraterritoriality," when American laws apply to Canadian companies who might do business with Cuba, and might to business with the USA as well. There is a ton of scholarly debate on the issue from Canadian political scientists. This article could benefit from more input from a Canadianist (an expert on Canada). Smithe26 00:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
