|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law
Reference:
B.I. Osminin
Implementation of International Treaty Obligations
in the Domestic Legal System
of the United States of America.
// Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law.
2011. ¹ 5.
P. 65-75.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=58922
B.I. Osminin Implementation of International Treaty Obligations in the Domestic Legal System of the United States of America.Abstract: Under art. VI, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) all treaties concluded by the United States are considered to be part of the supreme law of the land. Consequently, they are superior to State law, while they have equal status to federal statutes. The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as also applying to executive agreements. Cases of inconsistency between a treaty and a statute will be resolved by means of the “last–in–time” rule. U.S. courts will not apply international law, whether derived from treaty or from custom, in conflict with congressional enactment that comes later in time: the courts have reasoned that “the latest expression of the sovereign will” should prevail. U.S. courts have developed a distinction between “self–executing” and “non–self–executing” treaties; the former will be directly applied by the courts but the latter must await implementation by the legislative or executive branches. Keywords: the supreme law of the land, to give effect to international agreements within the U.S., the latest expression of the sovereign will, the “last–in–time” rule, implementing legislation, self–executing agreements, non–self–executing agreements, a presumption in favor of treaty self–execution, a presumption against treaty self–execution, the non–self– executing declaration.
This article is unavailable for unregistered users.
Click to login or register
References
1. Bernam U. Pravovaya sistema SShA / Per. s angl. M., 2006.
2. Venskaya konventsiya o prave mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov // Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR. 1986. ¹ 37. St. 772.
3. Konstitutsiya Soedinennykh Shtatov Ameriki. V kn.: Konstitutsii zarubezhnykh gosudarstv: Uchebnoe posobie // Sost. V.V. Maklakov. M., 2009.
4. Lukashuk I.I. Pravo mezhdunarodnoi otvetstvennosti. M., 2004.
5. Osminin B.I. Zaklyuchenie i implementatsiya mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov i vnutrigosudarstvennoe pravo: [monografiya]. M., 2010. 1. Beyond confrontation. International law for the post–cold war era / Edited by L.F. Damrosch, G.M. Danilenko and R. Mullerson. Westview press. 1995. 2. Bradley C. Breard, Our Dualist Constitution and Internationalist Conception // Stanford Law Review. 1999. Vol. 51. 3. Bradley C. Intent, Presumption, and Non–Self–Execution Treaties // The American Journal of International Law. 2008. Vol. 102. 4. Bradley C. Self–Executing and Treaty Duality (2009). Duke Law School Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 162. http:// lsr.nellco.org/duke_fs/162. 5. Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law. Edited by John R. Crook // American Journal of International Law. 2010. Vol. 104. ¹ 1.
6. Digest of the United States Practice in International Law. International Law Institute. Washington. 2008.
7. Garcia M. International Law and Agreements: Their Effect upon U.S. Law // Congressional Research Service. 2010.
8. The Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (“The Proxmire Act”). U.S. Code. Title 18. Part I. Chapter 50A. Section 1091 // http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide.htm.
9. Halberstam M. Alvarez–Machain II:The Supreme Court’s Reliance on the Non–Self–Executing Declaration in the Senate Resolution Giving Advice and Consent to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Righs//Journal of National Security Law & Policy. 2005. Vol. 1.
10. Henkin L. Implementation and Compliance: Is Dualism Metastasing? // Proceedings of the Annual Meeting. American Society of International Law. Vol. 91. April 9–12, 1997.
11. Henkin L. U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker // The American Journal of International Law. 1995. Vol. 89.
12. Kesavan V. The Three Tiers of Federal Law // Northwestern University Law Review. 2006. Vol. 100.
13. Ku Jul. Treaties as Laws: A Defense of the Last–in–Time Rule for Treaties and Federal Statutes // Indiana Law Journal. 2005. Vol. 80.
14. Martin Fr., Schnably St., Wilson R., Simon J., Tushnet M. International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases and Analysis. New York, 2006.
15. Medellin v. Texas. 552 U.S. 491 (2008).
16. Namicas M. Up in Smoke?: The Last in Time Rule and Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp // St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary. 2008. Vol. 22.
17. Paust J. International Law as Law of the United States: Trends and Prospects // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2002.
18. Paust J. Self–Executing Treaties. // The American Journal of International Law. 1988. Vol. 82.
19. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. Vol. 1. The American Law Institute. 1987.
20. Sloss D. Treaties and Constitution: Enforcing Treaties Against the States. February 2011 // http://works.bepress. com/ david_sloss/2.
21. Turner J. The Post–Medellin Case for Legislative Standing // American University Law Review. 2010. Vol. 59.
22. Vazquez C. The Four Doctrines of Self–Executing Treaties // The American Journal of International Law. 1995. Vol. 89.
23. Vazquez C. Treaties as Law of the Land: The Supremacy Clause and the Judicial Enforcement of Treaties // Harvard Law Review. 2008. Vol. 122.
24. Yoo J. Globalism and the Constitution: Treaties, Non–Self–Execution, and the Original Understanding // Columbia Law Review. 1999. Vol. 99.
25. Yoo J. Treaties and Public Lawmaking: A Textual and Structural Defense of Non–Self–Execution // Columbia Law Review. 1999. Vol. 99
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
Eng
