Search: self-defense
17 Feb The Other Carolines
For Mexico, this was not, by any means, the proper interpretation of the self-defence exception. Indeed, he argued, “[t]his principle [of self-defence] would never have been allowed, were it not, as it is, founded in justice and reason; where it not like all the other principles, together composing the law of nations, derived from the natural law”. Thus, he continued, the right to self-defence “fixes upon us the obligation of preserving and defending ourselves” but, at the same time, “prohibits us from so doing to the evident injury of a...21 Oct My Thoughts on the (Robert) Bernstein Editorial (Slightly Updated)
...violated the laws of war — a marked contrast to David Bernstein and NGO Monitor, which assume as a matter of faith that Israel can do no wrong. That, at least, is my take on his statement, “[t]o be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.” I think it is far from self-evident that Israel’s wrongs have all been committed in self-defense,...09 Apr What’s the Status of the US-Canada Boundary after Medellin?
then the question of self-executing effect cannot arise. Neither the fact that the treaty as such isn't domestic law nor the fact that there is implementing legislation therefore suggest that the US ought to think of the treaty as either self-executing or not. Nor do I think there's a semi-political point to be drawn from this, at least in the sense of an argument against self-executing effect. Considerations of reciprocity might suggest that there isn't a really good claim to self-executing effect if nothing of the sort exists in the...25 Mar Medellín, Non-Self-Executing Treaties, and the Supremacy Clause
the VCCR’s optional protocol is one such treaty.) Footnote 2 of the majority opinion provides the Court’s new definition: What we mean by “self-executing” is that the treaty has automatic domestic effect upon ratification. Conversely, a “non-self-executing” treaty does not by itself give rise to domestically enforceable federal law. Whether such a treaty has domestic effect depends upon implementing legislation passed by Congress. Whereas forests have been felled on the question of whether a non-self-executing treaty merely fails to provide a cause of action, or also fails to provide judicially...30 Sep BIT Provisions that Are Self-Executing But Do Not Confer a Private Right of Action
to which this Treaty will be self-executing. This provides that Articles 3-10 of the Treaty are self-executing and do not confer private rights of action enforceable in United States courts. The remaining provisions of the Treaty are not self-executing and do not confer private rights of action enforceable in United States courts.” I’m glad to see that the Senate is carefully addressing the issue of domestic implementation of treaties following Medellin. The dispute settlement mechanisms in the treaty are not self-executing and any arbitration award rendered pursuant thereto must be...10 Oct More Medellin, or “How the Court Further Confuses the Self-Executing Treaty Doctrine”
...although it seems to turn the original definition of non-self-execution articulated by Chief Justice Marhsall on its head (Marshall had suggested that a treaty is non-self-executing when it is addressed to the “political, not the judicial department”). If the Court can execute the treaty, it would seem to be self-executing at least in the original sense of that term. There were also a few interesting exchanges on the question of the constitutionality of treaty provisions that commit the United States to binding dispute settlement, especially if those decisions were automatically...