Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
> On 22 Mar, Celejar wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:59:35 -0400 (EDT)
> > email@example.com wrote:
> >> > ...
> >> I was referring to the interpretation of the this part of the
> >> third convention, itself, which is of course binding on the US:
> >> "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
> >> belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy,"
> >> belong to any of the categories for POWs, "such persons shall enjoy
> >> the protection of the present Convention until such time as their
> >> status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
> > I understand, but the question is whether the 'international law
> > interpretation' of 'competent tribunal' as 'a body of the judicial
> > branch' is something to which the US is bound. Incidentally, my
> > 'violently' was a poor choice of words; I meant 'vehemently'.
> > Celejar
> The convention itself merely states "competent tribunal", without
> any further expansion. I have heard some lawyers state, in radio
> interviews, that there are other instruments of international law
> (presumably that the US is a party to) which address this issue and
> state that it cannot be a part of the executive branch. I am certainly
> not an expert on this issue, but took them at their word.
> At any rate, we'll probably see some US court rulings addressing
> this in the near future.
I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I agree that the crux
of the matter is the definition of 'competent tribunal'; I'm just more
skeptical than you are of the view of the lawyers that *binding*
international law requires that the tribunal not be a part of the
executive. Liberal thinkers in general have a much more expansive view
of the binding nature of international law (even when we haven't
signed the relevant accord) than I do.