Timeline for What exactly is banned if the US bans on several Chinese apps go into effect?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2020 at 16:18 | comment | added | user102008 | I have updated the question with links to the Commerce Department regulations. Can you update your answer given that information? | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 21:09 | comment | added | Just a guy | @DrDee American and real English also uses the same words differently in academic titles. Thus, a lecturer in the US is not the same as a lecturer in the UK. In the UK, lecturer is the lowest "real" academic position; one can work permanently as a lecturer. Not so in the US. In the US, a lecturer is generally temporary, and not on a job ladder that leads to tenure. So the fact that someone is a "lecturer" at Harvard is usually not worth noting in the same way it might be in the UK. | |
| Aug 9, 2020 at 8:10 | history | edited | DrDee | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 180 characters in body
|
| Aug 9, 2020 at 8:09 | comment | added | DrDee | Interesting article published yesterday here: lawfareblog.com/… | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 17:52 | comment | added | DrDee | @Justaguy - thank you for the welcome and constructive feedback! :-) This place is a phenomenal resource. | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 16:58 | comment | added | Just a guy | @MatthewCline My hunch is that if pressed, the P's lawyers will point out that "transaction" has broader definitions. Implicit in this is the fact (threat? promise?) that the P could solve this particular problem by issuing a new EO, explicitly mentioning "use." It is telling that so far, none of the credible legal commentators, many of whom oppose the EO, have noted this problem. This suggests that, as a matter of law-as-what-lawyers-do, "transaction" isn't a problem. (TenCent, which has a lot more at stake, might be desperate enough to raise this issue.) | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 16:49 | comment | added | Just a guy | @MatthewCline (Con't) Here’s the problem: The list of activities the P can control is disjunctive -- the various activities are joined by "or.” The general rule is that the items on disjunctive lists shouldn’t be treated as synonyms. Treating them as synonyms violates the "canon against superfluity,” an interpretive rule that says you can't interpret a law so any of its words are superfluous. If “transaction” includes all the other words on the list, what’s the point of list? | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 16:42 | comment | added | Just a guy | @MatthewCline Mea culpa. You are absolutely right! My bad for not looking at the EO before posting. I don't think the "trick" you suggest will get us to "use..." There are two problems. First, "or with respect to..." clearly modifies "transaction." That phrase says the P can control any "transactions" a) by people who the US has jurisdiction over, or b) involving property that the US has jurisdiction over. We'd have to do some work to "stretch" the property phrase back past "transaction" to "use..." | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 16:10 | comment | added | Just a guy | @DrDee Nice work, and welcome to LSE! You are off to a flying start. | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 9:18 | comment | added | DrDee | Good spot @Justaguy - have made some further amendments! | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 9:17 | history | edited | DrDee | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 83 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2020 at 6:05 | comment | added | Matthew Cline | @Justaguy The current executive order says "any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property". Assuming the EO isn't amended, would "or with respect to any property" allow the use of the "acquiring, holding, using or transferring” part of the IEEPA? | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 0:57 | comment | added | Just a guy | @MatthewCline The Secretary of Commerce does not have to rely on “transactions.” 50 USC § 1702(b), also gives the President the power to control any “acquisition, holding…use, transfer, ,.. or importation of” any property controlled by a foreign national. Since TikTok uses servers in the US, users may not be “importing,” but they are surely “acquiring, holding, using or transferring” TikTok. | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 23:13 | history | edited | DrDee | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 7, 2020 at 15:05 | comment | added | DrDee | It's a really interesting train of thought. I would have thought so - but ultimately, that would have to be argued via the judicial system and legislature. | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 14:59 | comment | added | Matthew Cline | So legislative history and the intent of the authors of the IEEPA place limits on how far a secretary of state can stretch the definition of "transaction"? | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 14:42 | comment | added | DrDee | This is why it depends on the follow-on laws or regulations created by the relevant secretary of state that are created from this Executive Order. In the IEEPA - it seems to mostly be concerned with economic/financial transactions: fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45618.pdf - its statute and purview is discussed here also in this long document! | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 13:34 | comment | added | Matthew Cline | In the context of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, what exactly is the definition of "transaction", such that installing or using the TikTok software would be a transaction? And in what statute or case law is it defined? | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 12:46 | history | answered | DrDee | CC BY-SA 4.0 |