Author: John C. Dehn

Guest Post: A Critique of Dodge and Cleveland, and Thoughts on Bond

[John C. Dehn is an Assistant Professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law] In a recent article posted to SSRN, and introduced by Duncan here, Professors Sarah Cleveland and Bill Dodge (“the authors”) have done us all a great service in unearthing the history of the Offenses Clause and its inclusion of U.S. treaty violations.  Although I was originally suspect of their claim that the Offenses Clause empowers Congress to punish all U.S. treaty violations, as was obvious in my comments to Duncan’s post, I ultimately found myself convinced of this aspect of their thesis. The persuasive evidence they marshaled to support this broad claim, however, caused me to question the rather uncertain limitation that they later placed on it: that conduct being punished pursuant to the Offenses Clause “must itself be condemned in some manner under international law.”  (p. 3, all bare page references are to draft article)  Further to this point, the authors posit that the Offenses Clause allows Congress to punish “when: (1) a treaty operates directly to prohibit the conduct; (2) a treaty expressly mandates that states punish the conduct; (3) a treaty clearly proscribes the conduct, even if it does not operate directly on individuals or expressly mandate punishment; [or] (4) a treaty authorizes punishment under international law, even if it does not require it.  In all such cases, however, it must be international law that condemns the relevant conduct, at least in general terms….”  (p. 53). The intent behind these proposed limitations is laudable: to circumscribe what might otherwise be construed as virtually limitless congressional authority to regulate domestic matters potentially implicating U.S. treaty obligations.  Much of the evidence the authors offer in support of the broader claim seems to potentially undermine these limitations, that is, depending upon exactly what they intended to exclude.  (I, for one, would welcome the authors to provide examples of treaty provisions excluded by their proposed limitations.  In establishing their broader thesis the authors cited even congressional reliance upon what appear to be hortatory provisions of the U.N. Charter.  See p. 34). Throughout the article, the authors rely on founding era and other evidence supporting a purposeful reading of the Offenses Clause. To summarize: (1) the Offenses Clause reaches treaty infractions because treaties, even bilateral treaties, become part of the law of nations; and, (2) the Offenses Clause was enacted so that Congress may ensure national compliance with the law of nations, including U.S. treaty obligations.  They present an abundance of pre- and post-constitutional evidence to support this broad thesis.  And they recognize that the law of nations applies not only to a state acting in its corporate capacity but also to its members acting individually.  Thus, the act of a single person may, in the proper context, place a nation in violation of its international obligations. In such circumstances, it would seem, the Offenses Clause allows regulation of any such act. Indeed, the authors’ evidence strongly suggests that a relevant provision of international law need not “address” if this means to some affirmative extent, even generally (unless exceptionally generally), the precise conduct Congress is regulating pursuant to the Offenses Clause.  Any conduct capable of violating a treaty obligation in a proper context is susceptible of regulation.  To say that the law of nations includes treaties is to say that every act that results in a treaty violation is “condemned” by the law of nations.  Thus, it seems redundant for the authors to suggest, as a limitation, that “it must be international law that condemns the relevant conduct, at least in general terms.” And it seems internally inconsistent to require that “a treaty clearly proscribes the conduct, even if it does not operate directly on individuals or expressly mandate punishment.”  Violation of a general treaty provision may occur in myriad ways not mentioned or even contemplated at the time the relevant treaty was drafted and adopted.

Salvaging the Charming Betsy in ATS Cases: A Response to Rio Tinto

There is much to be analyzed in the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Sarei v. Rio Tinto. I am exercising a guest blogging privilege to address two aspects: its holding regarding the nature of the cause of action (and implicitly, the remedy) available under the ATS, and, the consequences of that holding to a proper understanding of the extension of that remedy...

Congress’s Constitutional Power to Establish National War Policy in Violation of International Law – A (Belated) Response to Professors Golove & Kent

Please forgive the recent interruption to my guest blogging tenure.  I currently live in New Jersey.  We sought refuge from Hurricane Irene in a cabin in the Adirondacks – sans internet access.  Interesting times. Earlier this summer, Opinio Juris hosted an excellent discussion of an important new book, International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court, a well-edited collection of essays about...

Judicial Review of Potentially Lethal Targeting Decisions — Through the Lens of the bin Laden Operation

Last week I posted about the challenges to and importance of judicial review of war measures against U.S. citizens.  This post will use the bin Laden killing to explore the issue in the context of targeting --- hopefully in manner accessible to the average reader.  After reviewing issues likely preventing prior judicial adjudication or review of a potentially lethal (“kill...

An Opportunity for Judicial Review of the Existence of Armed Conflict?

Let me respond to Kevin’s thoughtful post and discuss an opportunity for judicial review of an (implicit or explicit) elected branch assertion of the existence of an armed conflict.  (After all, I promised Raha an example that I have not yet provided.) In my opinion, Hamdan is not an example of such judicial review.  The Bush administration did not argue that...

Should the Judiciary Question the Existence of Armed Conflict?

In response to my last post, Raha Wala asked a wonderfully difficult question.  I have argued below, as well as here and here, that judicial review of executive war measures against U.S. citizens in armed conflict is not only permissible but may even be constitutionally compelled (in cases meeting other prerequisites to the exercise of judicial power).  Raha asked whether I believed...

The “Costs” of Accountability in War

I’d like to call attention to comments by Ben Wittes over at Lawfare regarding two recent New York Times editorials.  Both editorials essentially deal with issues of accountability in armed conflict.  One voiced (understandable) skepticism regarding government claims that the CIA’s drone programs have caused no civilian deaths in the past year or so.  The other commented on a Seventh...