Originally from Revolution in the International Rule of Law: Essays in Honor of Don Wallace, Jr.

Preview Page

I. Introduction

The tension between the demands of international law and perceptions
of basic national interests, both domestic and foreign, is seldom more
profound than when the United States Government contemplates the use of
force abroad. In the economic and financial sphere, a delicate tension
likewise marks the introduction and implementation of unilateral foreign
policy sanctions. Over the decades, the U.S. has chosen in some instances
to introduce what I will call "feel-good" unilateral sanctions, that is, those
intended to meet some pressing national security concern but that do little
damage to the target nation-State because of alternative sources of supply.
In such cases, United States exporters are known to have concluded that all
the Government has achieved is to "shoot itself (and United States
business enterprises) in the foot." In late 1981, however, there came a time
when a President of the United States decided that unilateral sanctions
were going to have a real bite, and it was on that occasion that the paths of
Don Wallace and Davis Robinson first intersected, much to the ultimate
fondness of the latter.

II. Siberian Pipeline Sanctions of 1981-1982

During 1981 and 1982, Don Wallace, in addition to his responsibilities
as a distinguished international law professor at Georgetown University
Law Center, was of counsel to a law firm that was ultimately retained by
John Brown & Company, the single largest employer in Glasgow,
Scotland, to oppose and contest sanctions that, if enforced, would have a
calamitous effect on the business operations of the parent and of its
subsidiary, John Brown Engineering. All of John Brown's revenues were