Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On 23 Mar, Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
> judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
>
> ...
>> 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.
>
> Celejar
>
>
I agree with you that we are only bound under Article 6 of the
constitution to agreements that we are a signatory to. Congress can
also enact laws to bring US law into accord with other treaties. For
example the US War Crimes act refers to violations of the Geneva
conventions and other agreements. I'm not sure if this is the case with
respect to the tribunal issue, but as I said, we'll probably see it
tested soon.
-Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christopher Judd, Ph. D. judd@wadsworth.org |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: