Hot answers tagged

16

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in effect since 1976 and currently signed by about 179 countries, has in Article 12 Paragraph 4: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. It's not absolute, as it would allow for a person to be deprived of that right if it weren't "arbitrary". But it's ...


8

The wikipedia article on "Right of Return" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return) cites several treaties: The right of return principle has been codified in a number of international instruments, including: Hague Regulations (HR), article 20: After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as ...


8

The ICERD would not apply to the natural born citizens clause by its own definitions. Part 1, Article 1, secs 2 and 3 read: This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in ...


5

One might think that. However, as the Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 held that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution", observing that "[t]his Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a ...


5

The U.S. law rule is that treaties and laws are co-equal and that one does not supersede the other. In the U.S., the rule is that the last passed law or treaty prevails, over earlier passed laws or treaties if they conflict. See, e.g., Julian G. Ku, "Treaties as laws: A Defense of the Last-in-Time Rule for Treaties and Federal Statutes" 80 Indiana Law ...


4

Most broadly, ratification is the approval, by a principal, of an act by an agent, whereby the agent indicates contingent acceptance (contingent on the principle actually approving). This can be relevant to contracts as well as treaties. For treaties, the US President has the power to negotiate a treaty, but making it binding on the country requires ...


3

No, under US law, it is an "executive agreement", not a "treaty". The vast majority of US's international agreements are done as executive agreements, and not treaties; and the power of the executive branch to make executive agreements has been repeatedly upheld in the courts. Specifically, there are two types of executive agreements: "Congressional-...


3

First of all, the wording in your question hints at the UK deliberately launching a missile (even if it is a test one) towards the USA. Nothing in the news piece you link to support that supposition, the general idea is a missile that was launched towards the Atlantic Ocean that steered off route. From your link: The treaty recognizes five states as ...


3

The convention is here. Under Article X para 8, if chemical weapons have been used against a State Party, it may request assistance and may receive assistance and protection against such an attack (the request goes to the Director General of the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, who transmits it to the ...


3

First, the practical answer is no: even if they ordered the President to go to war, the President can just refuse. The military is generally in the habit of listening to orders from the President, particularly if the question is "do we or do we not go to war;" the courts do not have the power to command the armed forces. They could try issuing an injunction ...


2

Focusing on the legal question rather than the political. Sovereign power does not mean unfettered power; just ask King John or King George III. The government of the United States exists under the law of the United States. The law of the United States has recognised that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is part of US customary law. Basically, ...


2

You are confusing two separate concepts: trademark and copyright. I'll give you a broad overview of both of these, although the details will differ depending on what country's law we're talking about. A copyright is held by the creator of a work of artistic expression. It gives the creator certain exclusive rights, including the right to create copies of ...


2

The Paris Treaty The Paris Treaty for the Protection of Industrial Property ("the Treaty") provides uniform protection for trademarks for all states party to the treaty. This includes France and the United States of America. Trademarks Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC ("the Rightsholder") holds trademarks on many trademarks ...


2

Under which law? International law? or US law? Since you mentioned suing in US courts, US courts are only competent to rule on matters of US law. But it's not clear that a mutual defense provision of a treaty is a matter of US domestic law in the first place. Second, the North Atlantic Treaty doesn't actually require any specific action be taken. ...


2

There is no such limitation Each sovereign state is free to recognise or not recognise another state. Further, each is free to recognise or not recognise a government of a state they recognise. For example, most Arab nations do not recognise Israel and, by extension, the government of Israel. Without a UN resolution sanctions are also a matter for ...


2

The convention itself specifies that a country must explicitly declare its non acceptance of an amendment in order to be exempted from an amendment that is otherwise accepted. So it seems that the UN official was correct.


2

Why might this treaty be seen as an issue in Japan but not the US? In the U.S., when there is a conflict between a treaty and a statute enacted by Congress, the last enacted law controls. So, any U.S. law passed by Congress after 1949 could override the Geneva Convention of 1949 on this topic. I am not certain that Congress has passed such a law, but it ...


2

I am not aware of any such treaties (although some free trade treaties such as the treaties forming the EU may have that effect among members nations). Limitations on removing assets from a country aren't that uncommon. Many countries have them and more have had them historically. There is a small sub-field within economics that examines the effect of such ...


2

(Preliminary remark: Your "question" contains at least six questions, half of which are so broad that you might be better served by studying some introductory material on international law.) (Re ¶1) International law is "the legal system governing the relationships between countries; more modernly, the law of international relations, embracing not only ...


2

Yes, it’s a treaty It’s a treaty between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which both countries have given force to in domestic law. It is also an agreement between eight Northern Irish political parties/groups.


1

For the US, violating the obligations of a treaty (for the purposes of international law) is not the same as a violation of the US constitution (for the purposes of domestic US law). The US Constitution is higher than treaties, and if a treaty is in conflict with the constitution, courts will rule the treaty null and void for the purposes of US law. See the ...


1

One of the powers that sovereign nations have is to make treaties with other sovereign nations, these can be bi-lateral (as in the example you cite) or multi-lateral (like the Maastricht Treaty that binds the EU together). Once a treaty is agreed and signed it needs to be ratified by each country which makes it part of the domestic law in that country: for ...


1

A treaty is not a contract. Even so, if one party unilaterally breaches a contract, then they are indeed in breach and can be sued for damages. As with a contract, there are clauses about modifying or terminating the agreement by mutual agreement. The treaty does not bind individuals, it binds nations, so the actions of the father are not inherited by the ...


1

The "even if" clause might be removable and the interpretation would be the same, though without the full context it's hard to say. The crucial question is whether US resident are not eligible for the benefit but non-residents who meet qualifications A, B, C are. If the rule is that you have be a non-resident A,B,C, then "even if" means that becoming a US ...


1

Although an extradition treaty is required between the US and some other requesting nation, that may not be the case with Norway. There is a law pertaining to extradition, the current version being here; an English translation of an earlier version (not significantly changed) is here. That law spells out the general conditions for any extradition, so a ...


1

Apart from the fact that members of the current UN Human Rights Council are, inter alia, China, Saudi-Arabia and Cuba, which underlines the relevance of UN instruments, taking part in the Government is vague or broad enough to say, that access to participation in the Government may not per se denied on the basis of national origin, as opposed to a specific ...


1

As a practical matter, it would have to be an amazing scenario before there was a chance in hell that a court would order it. Some of the basic legal issues: great deference to the President in matters of foreign affairs; ratification of treaties creates an international law obligation but not a necessarily a domestic law obligation; international law is ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible