IP: RE: Asked my lawyer about this Treaties

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Paul Lembesis" <lembesis () emerson-associates com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: Re: RE: Asked my lawyer about this Treaties
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:37:33 -0400
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
>
> Dave,
>
> I've worked on the negotiation and ratification of several treaties
> (including START and the Chemical Weapons Convention), so perhaps I can
> help.
>
> Treaties are the law of the land.  When a treaty obligation is inconsistent
> with an existing law, a new law must be passed to resolve the conflict.
> Many treaties have such "implementing legislation."  The implementing
> legislation is an ordinary law, approved by both the House and Senate and
> signed by the president.  Implementing legislation is also passed in many
> circumstances when there is a domestic obligation created by the treaty
> (even if there is no pre-existing, contrary law).
>
> Thus, an action by a U.S. individual or a corporation that is inconsistent
> with a treaty would also be inconsistent with a statute.  A foreign
> government could not normally take action to enforce the treaty against an
> individual or corporation.  However, the U.S. Government could take such
> action.  (Whether there are private rights of action depend on how the
> implementing statute is written.)
>
> Its also worth noting that while only the Senate (not the House) votes to
> consent to ratify a treaty, a two-thirds vote of the Senators present is
> required.
>
> Treaties only apply to a country once they are ratified by that country.
> For the United States, the president ratifies treaties, but he does so with
> the "advice and consent" of the Senate.
>
> Many multilateral treaties have provisions that the treaty does not take
> effect for anyone until a certain minimum number of countries ratify it.
>
> I have not made up my mind yet about the worthiness of Hague Convention on
> Jurisdiction.  It is worth noting that U.S. federal courts already grant
> jurisdiction to many claims made in foreign courts.  This is one of the
> major arguments made by U.S. supporters of the Hague Convention.  I think
> this point has an important element of truth in considering the effects that
> the Convention would have on the U.S., although of course there are
> counter-arguments.
>
>
> Hope this helps.  Feel free to distribute it if you want.
>
> Paul Lembesis



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/