Treaty Signature
In: THE OXFORD GUIDE TO TREATIES, Duncan Hollis, ed., Oxford University Press, Forthcoming
18 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: THE OXFORD GUIDE TO TREATIES, Duncan Hollis, ed., Oxford University Press, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 104, Heft 1, S. 146-150
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law, Band 104, Heft 1, S. 146-150
ISSN: 0002-9300
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 104, S. 63-64
ISSN: 2169-1118
SSRN
Working paper
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 102, Heft 3, S. 540-551
ISSN: 2161-7953
Ever since the Supreme Court's 1829 decision in Foster v. Neilson, it has been settled that some treaties ratified by the United States are "non-self-executing" and thus are not enforceable in U.S. courts unless implemented by Congress. Despite its pedigree, both the theory behind the self-execution doctrine and its mechanics have long befuddled courts and commentators. There is significant uncertainty, for example, concerning the materials that are relevant to the self-execution analysis, whose intent should count in determining self-executing status, the proper presumption that should be applied with respect to self-execution, and the domestic legal status of a non-self-executing treaty.
In: Foreign affairs, Band 87, Heft 4, S. 132-137
ISSN: 0015-7120
In: Foreign affairs, Band 87, Heft 4, S. 132-137
ISSN: 0015-7120
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 102, S. 306-306
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: American journal of international law, Band 102, Heft 3, S. 540-550
ISSN: 0002-9300
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 101, Heft 2, S. 322-344
ISSN: 2161-7953
Many commentators argued that a central problem with the government's actions after the attacks of September 11, 2001, was executive unilateralism. For example, in criticizing President George W. Bush's initial effort to establish military commissions to try terrorists, Professors Neal Katyal and Laurence Tribe argued that, "in the absence of an emergency that threatens truly irreparable damage to the nation or its Constitution, that Constitution's text, structure, and logic demand approval by Congress if life, liberty, or property are to be significantly curtailed or abridged." These commentators therefore invited the courts to play a "democracy-forcing" role to prompt greater congressional participation, through, in particular, the application of "clear statement" requirements. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court accepted this invitation. In holding that the military commission system that President Bush had established to try terrorist detainees was invalid, the Court relied on what it believed to be restrictions in the Uniform Code of Militaryjustice (U.C.M.J.), a statute that is of course subject to amendment by Congress. Thus, as Justice Stephen Breyer and other Justices noted in a concurrence, "Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."
In: Harvard international law journal, Band 48, Heft 2, S. 307-336
ISSN: 0017-8063
World Affairs Online
SSRN
Working paper
In: American journal of international law, Band 101, Heft 2, S. 322-381
ISSN: 0002-9300
World Affairs Online
In: American journal of international law, Band 104, Heft 1, S. 146-150
ISSN: 0002-9300
World Affairs Online