Treaties as Domestic Law in the United States

2009 ◽  
pp. 219-242
Author(s):  
Alex Glashausser
2000 ◽  
Vol 99 (641) ◽  
pp. 430-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart Patrick

Since the end of the cold war, the United States has demonstrated a growing willingness to act alone and to opt out of multilateral initiatives. Whether tiring of its international obligations, preoccupied with domestic concerns, or tempted to exploit its hegemony, the country has in a number of prominent instances withdrawn from collective initiatives, demanded exemptions from global rules, shirked commitments to international organizations, or extended its domestic law extraterritorially.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault

This chapter details the history of U.S. POW treatment from the Revolutionary War through the Korean War to demonstrate the consistent importance bestowed upon the use of humane methods. Particular attention is paid to the application of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. policy, military doctrine, and domestic law, as these international legal statutes have come to represent the core of international humanitarian law. Chapter 2 shows that while the United States struggled at times to adapt to new and unforeseen scenarios, it always worked to address these ambiguities from the perspective of reinforcing, rather than challenging, the norm of humane treatment.


1954 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Finch

“The treaty-making power is an extraordinary power liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-436
Author(s):  
Amy Elizabeth Chinnappa

AbstractThe Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) governed Iraq from 2003 following Resolution 1483 of the UN Security Council. This Resolution affirmed that Iraq was in a state of occupation and that there were occupying powers. The Resolution referred to the United States of America and the United Kingdom as ‘occupying powers under the unified command of the “Authority”’, the ‘Authority’ being the CPA. However, the legal status of the CPA and its relationship to the US (the focus of this article) is not entirely clear, both under US domestic law and international law. This lack of clarity could have significant implications for the US’s responsibility for the CPA’s conduct. As with private military companies, a CPA-style administration of territory could become a tool for states to quarantine their risk under the law of occupation. This article contends that the theory of occupation by proxy may help clarify the legal status of the CPA and its relationship to the US and could assist in closing the identified gap in responsibility. To support this argument, this article establishes a legal framework for the theory of occupation by proxy which is then applied to the CPA and US.


1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-764
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Diane Marie Amann

United States v. Balsys. 118 S.Ct. 2218.U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1998.Resolving a long-open question, the U.S. Supreme Court held in this 7-2 decision that a witness in a domestic proceeding may not invoke the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination if the witness fears that the testimony may be used in a prosecution outside the United States. Although grounded in domestic law, the three opinions in Balsys reveal tension between the judiciary's traditional deference to the political branches in foreign relations matters and its concern over the risk that individuals subject to prosecution abroad will suffer deprivation of liberty because of that deference.


2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 47-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cerone

In assessing the legality of the killing of Osama bin Laden one is reminded of a saying about the situation in Lebanon. If you think you understand it, it has not been properly explained to you.Of course, one major obstacle is that we do not have all the facts. However, we also do not have all the law.The complexity of analyzing the legality of the killing begins with the threshold issue of applicable law. Is the conduct to be analyzed according to domestic law or international law? If domestic law, then which country’s domestic laws are applicable? Certainly that of the United States and Pakistan would be applicable. Saudi law might also apply (e.g., on the basis of nationality), in addition to the laws of those countries that have another basis under their domestic law for exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction (e.g., on the universality principle).


Author(s):  
Curtis A. Bradley

This chapter considers what is potentially encompassed by the term “foreign relations law,” and what it means to think about it as a distinct field of law that can be compared and contrasted across national jurisdictions. The term “foreign relations law” encompasses the domestic law of each nation that governs how that nation interacts with the rest of the world. Many issues of foreign relations law concern allocations of authority between political actors, such as the authority to represent the nation in diplomacy, to conclude and terminate international agreements, to recognize foreign governments and their territories, and to initiate or end the use of military force. But foreign relations law also encompasses issues relating to the role of the courts in transnational cases, such as whether certain issues are “nonjusticiable” and thus subject entirely to political branch determination, whether courts should take into account considerations of international comity when interpreting and applying domestic law, and whether and to what extent courts can apply international law directly to decide a particular case. The chapter describes the historical development of foreign relations law as a field of study within the United States and considers why it has not been treated as a field in many other countries. The chapter concludes by highlighting a central question for foreign relations law, which is the extent to which it should be treated differently than other types of domestic law—referred to in the United States as a debate over “foreign affairs exceptionalism.”


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Dhaxna Sothieson

<p>In January 2012, the United States requested the assistance of the New Zealand government under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 (MACMA) to execute a search warrant at Kim Dotcom’s residence. A few months later, the High Court held that this warrant was invalid and its execution unlawful. The case illustrates the importance of effective cooperation between two executive authorities. This article will build on the case and argue that the flexibility of MACMA provisions must be used by domestic authorities to ensure that a request accords with domestic law and fulfils the purpose of the Act. The flexibility of these provisions are even more important to utilise under the new landscape of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, enacted after Dotcom v Attorney-General, to ensure that New Zealand can register and enforce a foreign search warrant request.</p>


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-504 ◽  

Consistent with President Trump's America First trade agenda, his administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports in early March of 2018, triggering various responses and challenges. Countries have followed through on early objections to the tariffs through retaliatory tariffs and challenges in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and steel importers have challenged the legality of these tariffs under U.S. domestic law. At the same time, these tariffs have been revised multiple times, either to delay the implementation period for certain countries seeking exemptions or to permanently grant exemptions to countries who reached negotiated arrangements with the United States.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document