Provisional measures, U.S. treaty obligations, and the states

American Journal of International Law

Volumn 92, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 679-683

  Henkin, Louis ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032263162     PISSN: 00029300     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2998130     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Case concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Para. v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, dispositif, para. 41 (Order of Apr. 9, 1998) 〈http://www.icj-cij.org〉.
2. Letter from U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to James S. Gilmore III, Governor of Virginia (Apr. 13, 1998), excerpted in N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 14, 1998, at A14.
3. See generally Rosalyn Higgins, Interim Measures for the Protection of Human Rights, in POLITICS, VALUES AND FUNCTIONS: INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE 21st CENTURY 87 (Jonathan I. Charney, Donald K. Anton & Mary Ellen O'Connel eds., 1997).
4. ICJ STATUTE, June 26, 1945, Art. 58, 59 Stat. 1055, TS No. 993.
5. John Marshall, quoted in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936).
6. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES §111 (1987) [hereinafter RESTATEMENT].
7. Breard v. Greene, 118 S.Ct. 1352, 1356 (1998) ("unfortunate" circumstance of the ICJ proceeding; "[n]onetheless, this Court must decide questions presented to it on the basis of law").
8. Compare Sanitary Dist. v. United States, 262 U.S. 405, 425-26 (1925) (U.S. may bring bill in equity to enjoin action by state agency in order, inter alia, to carry out U.S. treaty obligation; "Attorney General by virtue of his office may bring the proceeding and no statute is necessary to authorize the suit."); United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 194 (1926) (original proceeding by U.S. against Minnesota; U.S. had the right to invoke the aid of a court of equity in removing unlawful obstacles to the fulfillment of its obligations under an Indian treaty).
9. See United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942).
10. 315 U.S. at 329-30. See also RESTATEMENT, supra note 6, §1 reporters' note 4; Louis HENKIN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 54-61 (2d ed. 1996).
11. 315 U.S. at 329-30. See also RESTATEMENT, supra note 6, §1 reporters' note 4; Louis HENKIN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 54-61 (2d ed. 1996).
12. 318 U.S. 578, 589 (1943).
13. 324 U.S. 30, 38 (1945).
14. Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968).
15. See United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 112 (1941).
16. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U.S 144 (1992).
17. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
18. See, e.g., Asakura v. Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924).
19. Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 575-76 (1840).
20. United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937).
21. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 606 (1889).
22. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 233 (1942). Compare Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 413-14 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.), See also Calhoun: "In our relation to the rest of the world . . . the States disappear." 29 ANNALS OF CONG. 531 (1815-16).
23. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 233 (1942). Compare Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 413- 14 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.), See also Calhoun: "In our relation to the rest of the world . . . the States disappear." 29 ANNALS OF CONG. 531 (1815-16).
24. U.S. CONST. Art. II.
25. Id., Art. VI.