Talk:Helms–Burton Act

Untitled
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


 * Signed by Clinton enthusiastically - https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/222515 - Beardo (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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.)


 * Part of the law ("Title III") has been waived every six month, though the last was for 45 days only - to mid-March. -- Beardo (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

..... I am not an expert in this area, so I will not change anything. However, on the face of it there is a problem in the following passage:

Similarly, Canada passed a law to counteract the effect of Helms-Burton. In addition, its legislature proposed (but did not pass) the Godfrey-Milliken Bill that satirized Burton-Helms. Sponsored by a Loyalist descendant, it demanded recompense for United Empire Loyalists and proposing similar travel restrictions on those "trafficking" in property confiscated during the American Revolution.

The following are laws that were passed in different countries to counteract the effects of Helms-Burton: Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act of Canada[10] Law of Protection of Commerce and Investments from Foreign Policies that Contravene International Law of Mexico

The problem: Canada's Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act was passed in 1984, some 10 years before Helms-Burton. (Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, Statutes of Canada 1984, c. 49) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.24.238 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Cuba and the OAS
Section 105 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 states: "The President should instruct the United States Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States to oppose and vote against any termination of the suspension of the Cuban Government from participation in the Organization until the President determines under section 203(c)(3) that a democratically elected government in Cuba is in power." In light of the recent termination of the suspension of Cuba from participation in the Organization of American States on June 3, 2009, this clause is no longer valid. 68.4.61.237 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian

Wording
Regarding Section 111 (which forbids completion of the Juragua Nuclear Plant) and Section 106d (which forbid continuation of the operation of the now-defunct Lourdes facility), it's important to note that the proposed resumption of construction of the Juragua nuclear plant was axed long ago (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/18/world/cuba-and-russia-abandon-nuclear-plant-an-unfinished-vestige-of-the-soviet-era.html), but Cuba has not yet stated whether the Juragua Nuclear Plant will ever used to make nuclear fuel for first-generation planetary rovers. The Lourdes military facility itself was shut down in 2001 and has been converted into an information engineering school, and the US welcomed Russia's decision to shut down the Lourdes facility (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/10/wh101701.html). The Helms-Burton Act says that the US cannot recognize a Cuban government led by the Castros, but does not say anything about diplomatic recognition of a government led by Raul Castro's successor, Miguel Diaz-Canel. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Helms–Burton Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-114.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helms–Burton Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150121164951/http://www.hoganlovells.com/files/Publication/57d34e80-51b8-4ee0-ae64-750f65ee7642/Preview/PublicationAttachment/55896b90-840a-42bf-8744-752a7a206333/Cuba%20Aritcle%20FINAL.pdf to http://www.hoganlovells.com/files/Publication/57d34e80-51b8-4ee0-ae64-750f65ee7642/Preview/PublicationAttachment/55896b90-840a-42bf-8744-752a7a206333/Cuba%20Aritcle%20FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)