Hot answers tagged

17

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 ...


9

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


4

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 ...


4

It is possible in principle, in the US, under the Bureau of Prison Treaty Transfer program, so that one could serve your time in Australia for example -- but not New Zealand, which isn't part of a bilateral or multilateral treaty with the US: here is the list. Canada and Australia are on the list via the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. New ...


3

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.


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

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

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

There were two separate agreements the British-Irish Agreement (The Treaty between the UK and Irish Government) The Multi-Party Agreement (a Multilateral agreement between the UK, Irish Government and NI Parties) the International Agreement was the First One but its the Second One people refer to as the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement Any way the Treaty or ...


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

Do the Prime Minister's current statements mean that his previous actions in signing the Withdrawal Agreement were threatening to "deprive" the monarch of her territory, and that by pushing it through Parliament at speed and in the manner in which he did, that he "intimidated or overawed" at least one of those Houses in this regard? No. ...


2

The patented RSA algorithm (public key exchange) was independently developed by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman. However the algorithm had been found much earlier and secretly by Ellis and Cocks. This was eventually revealed, but the RSA patent remained valid until it expired in 2000. The prior art must be known to the patent office before the patent is granted ...


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

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally a non-self-executing document which sets aspirational standards for member governments to adopt in the conduct of their affairs. Any enforcement is through the adoption of compliance constitutional and statutory provisions in the domestic law of a member nation and there is really no other way to enforce ...


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 ...


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