Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Treaties And The Constitution: Enforcing Treaties Against The States, David Sloss
Treaties And The Constitution: Enforcing Treaties Against The States, David Sloss
David Sloss
Since the end of the Cold War, the nation’s leading foreign affairs scholars have debated issues involving the domestic application of treaties. The debate implicates fundamental constitutional questions concerning federalism, separation of powers, and individual rights. Central to the debate is the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Despite deep ideological divisions between nationalists and transnationalists, partisans on both sides agree on two points: first, that the “intent of the treaty makers” is the touchstone for self-execution analysis; and second, that Chief Justice Marshall applied the intent-based doctrine in his seminal opinion in Foster v. Neilson. The consensus view is …
Treaties And The Constitution: Enforcing Treaties Against The States, David Sloss
Treaties And The Constitution: Enforcing Treaties Against The States, David Sloss
David Sloss
Since the end of the Cold War, the nation’s leading foreign affairs scholars have debated issues involving the domestic application of treaties. The debate implicates fundamental constitutional questions concerning federalism, separation of powers, and individual rights. Central to the debate is the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Despite deep ideological divisions between nationalists and transnationalists, partisans on both sides agree on two points: first, that the “intent of the treaty makers” is the touchstone for self-execution analysis; and second, that Chief Justice Marshall applied the intent-based doctrine in his seminal opinion in Foster v. Neilson. The consensus view is …
Executing Foster V. Neilson: Enforcing Treaties Against The States, David Sloss
Executing Foster V. Neilson: Enforcing Treaties Against The States, David Sloss
David Sloss
In Medellin v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that Article 94 of the United Nations Charter is non-self-executing. In so holding, the Court applied the “intent-based” doctrine of self-execution. Conventional wisdom traces that doctrine to an 1829 opinion by Chief Justice Marshall in Foster v. Neilson. The conventional wisdom is wrong. Marshall applied the “two-step” approach to self-execution, not the modern intent-based doctrine. The two-step approach distinguishes clearly between questions of international and domestic law. International law governs the content and scope of the United States’ treaty obligations. Domestic law determines which government officers are responsible for domestic treaty implementation. …