SQote

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Rebecca says:

   September 13, 2009 at 8:16 pm

   Not sure DV, but I think if Congress ratifies a treaty then we’re supposed to follow it. That was until BushCO came along and all bets were off. As we’ve seen, the devil is in the enforcement part. Who’s gonna make us? Spain??

   If we don’t ratify some treaty, like global emissions, then we say we won’t play by anyone’s rules but our own.

2. Steve Newton says:

   September 13, 2009 at 8:51 pm

   Compliance with international law for nations, especially for “big powers,” has always been essentially voluntary.

   On the other hand, international law has often been applied to individuals, such as the trial of the Serbian Milosevic at the Hague or to various former Latin America dictators.

   Treaties, per se, are not obeyed in the US because they are international law, but because upon the ratification of the Senate they become American law.

3. Delaware Dem says:

   September 13, 2009 at 8:58 pm

   Steve is right.

   International law cannot overrule any federal, state or local law, unless we, the United States, are signatories to a treaty. For example, the nuclear test ban treaty. Let’s say that Alabama decided that it wanted to start allowing above ground atmospheric nuclear bomb tests within its borders. That would be illegal under the nuclear test ban treaty, which would have the same affect as federal law, and when federal law conflicts with state law, guess what? To the chagrin of the current crop of conservatives, federal law wins.

   And that is not to say that I am not in favor of Alabama nuking itself should it ever chose to. 😉

4. edisonkitty says:

   September 13, 2009 at 9:35 pm

   War crimes.

   There are a lot of instances where I think international law is tough to define in terms of legitimacy. For example, many nations find our 2nd Amendment rights or government use of the death penalty to be barbaric, while most Americans find things like caning or stoning to be cruel and unusual, to say the least.

   In the case of War crimes and crimes against humanity, we have had great success in global agreement on what’s not ok. For me that makes those types of cases legitimate World Court fodder.

   All that said, I agree with Steve and DD, that U.S. compliance has always been voluntary.

5. Dana says:

   September 14, 2009 at 8:15 am

   Let’s be honest here: war crimes are the excuse for the winners to hang the losers, and they apply only to individuals.

   Treaties, if ratified, become part of American law, and supersede legislative action. A nation is supposed to refrain from taking any action which would undermine a signed but as yet unratified treaty. Because of that provision of (unenforcable) international law, a president can, in effect, sign a treaty that he knows can’t be ratified, and still hold the country to its provisions, simply by not submitting it to the Senate for ratification; think SALT II and the Kyoto Accords here. That’s why President Bush had to “unsign” Kyoto, although he should have simply submitted it to the Senate, for ratification or rejection, knowing that it would have been rejected.

6. donviti says:

   September 14, 2009 at 9:26 am

   shorter answer:

   when it is convenient

7. Dana says:

   September 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm

   Actually, Mr Viti, you got it exactly right.