Irrevocable letter of credit

(redirected from Iloc)
Also found in: Acronyms, Encyclopedia.

Irrevocable letter of credit

Assurance of funds issued by a bank that cannot be canceled or amended without the beneficiary's approval.

Irrevocable Letter of Credit

A letter of credit that neither the bank granting it nor the letter holder (who is the buyer of some good) may cancel under any circumstances. This provides the seller with extra assurance that he/she will be paid on time and in the correct amount. Irrevocable letters of credit are most common in international commerce.
References in periodicals archive ?
Part III of the Article briefly reviews some of the proposed solutions to the problems of domestic violence and alcohol abuse in rural Alaska, including the solutions proposed by the ILOC Roadmap and Alaska's efforts to refer state cases to tribal courts.
The most recent and most prominent example of attempts to address the problems faced by Alaska Natives is the Indian Law and Order Commission's (ILOC) report titled "A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer" ("ILOC Roadmap").
The ILOC Roadmap urges Congress to overturn Venetie Tribal Gov't "by amending ANCSA to provide that former reservation lands acquired in fee by Alaska Native villages and other lands transferred in fee to Native villages pursuant to ANCSA are Indian country." (181) This proposed solution is almost certainly politically unfeasible because it would require the transfer of significant lands to Alaska tribes, resulting in the ability of tribes to tax on those lands.
The ILOC Roadmap next suggests that Congress and the President clarify that Native allotments and townsites in Alaska, which were unaffected by ANCSA, are legally considered Indian country, thus creating a land base for criminal jurisdiction.
Until recently, including when the ILOC Roadmap was drafted, this was prohibited by the federal regulation controlling taking land into trust, which restricted the applicable regulations from application in Alaska.
As its last recommendation, the ILOC Roadmap suggests that Congress should affirm the inherent criminal jurisdiction of Alaska tribes over members within the boundaries of the tribe's village.
Even apart from calls to revise jurisdiction, such as those found in the ILOC Roadmap, there are efforts by various state entities to utilize tribal courts or tribal court principles in the prosecution of criminal offenses under state law.
Criminal jurisdiction, though, introduces concerns apart from those that exist for civil jurisdiction, as discussed by the previous Alaska Attorney General in response to an Indian Law and Order Commission Report ("ILOC Roadmap").
In responding to the ILOC Roadmap, the State of Alaska made several legal arguments against extending criminal jurisdiction "off reservation" to Alaska tribes.
An attempt to "redefine Indian country" would assume that jurisdiction is necessarily tied to land, which is one of the flaws in the recommendations of the ILOC Roadmap.
In the context of public safety, ILOC recommended reestablishing territorial sovereignty for Alaska Native tribal governments as a vital step to improve public safety in rural communities.
(150.) In comments to the ILOC, the Alaska Attorney General took the position that the lack of Indian Country meant that tribes had jurisdiction in only two arenas: (1) the authority of tribes to determine tribal membership and (2) the authority to regulate disputes involving child protection and child custody when both parents and the child are members of the tribe.