Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-01T05:00:24.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementation and Compliance: Is Dualism Metastasizing?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Louis Henkin
Louis Henkin*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Wrap-Up Plenary: What’s Next on Implementation, Compliance and Effectiveness?
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 91 , 1997 , pp. 515 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Amendment to the Constitution proposed by Senator Bricker would have rendered all treaties non-self-executing and requiring legislation by Congress to give them effect as law in the United States. The Amendment would also have denied Congress the power to enact law implementing a treaty unless the legislation was within the power of Congress independently of the treaty—thus overruling Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920). The proponents of the Amendment apparently assumed that Congress did not have the power to enact human rights legislation in the absence of a treaty obligation. (Of course, the United States would not adhere to a human rights treaty if Congress could not carry out its obligation.) See Henkin, Louis, The Constitution and U.S. Foreign Affairs 192-93 (2d ed. 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Henkin, Louis, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, 89 Am. J. Int’l L. 341, 348-49 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 7377, later amended and codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1994).

3 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920).

4 130 U.S. 581 (1889).

5 In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891).

6 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886).

7 Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888).

8 Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102 (1933).

9 175 U.S. 677 (1900).

10 Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 788 F.2d 1446 (11th Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 1886 (1986).

11 U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992).

12 This was upheld in Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert, denied, 411 U.S. 931 (1973).