FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3126010810> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3126010810 startingPage "15" @default.
• W3126010810 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA)' imposes substantial restrictions on the judicial enforcement of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. courts. First, the MCA specifies that no alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.2 The MCA also stipulates: No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions ... in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or ... agent of the United States is a party as a source of right in any court of the United States or its States or territories.3 These statutory provisions are likely to face constitutional challenges in U.S. courts.4 The resolution of those constitutional issues will probably depend, in part, on whether the reviewing court applies the or model of treaty enforcement.5 Briefly, the transnationalist model holds: the Geneva Conventions have the status of law in the United States; courts should interpret the Conventions in accordance with international law; the Conventions protect individual rights; and the judiciary is responsible for providing remedies to individuals whose treaty rights are violated.6 In contrast, the nationalist model holds: the Geneva Conventions lack domestic legal force in the absence of implementing legislation; courts should interpret the Conventions in accordance with executive branch policy preferences; the Conventions do not create individually enforceable rights; and the judiciary is not responsible for providing remedies for violations of the Geneva Conventions.7 If a court applies the nationalist model, it will undoubtedly uphold the constitutionality of the MCA provisions cited above. From a nationalist perspective, these statutory provisions merely direct the courts to do what they ought to do anyway. Even if Congress had never enacted the MCA, nationalists contend, courts should refuse to enforce the Geneva Conventions on behalf of individuals who claim to be victims of treaty violations by U.S. government agents. If a court applies the transnationalist model, though, it might well conclude that the MCA provisions quoted above are unconstitutional. From a transnationalist perspective, if a court has jurisdiction over an actual controversy, the court has a constitutional duty to decide that controversy in accordance with supreme federal law, including treaty law. The MCA is constitutionally suspect in that it appears to direct courts to disregard a specific category of supreme federal law-the Geneva Conventions-even in cases where the court has jurisdiction and the proper resolution of the controversy requires application of the Geneva Conventions. This essay does not advocate a position for or against the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act. Instead, the essay contends that one cannot truly appreciate the nature of the constitutional issues at stake without understanding the conflict between the nationalist and transnationalist models. Accordingly, this essay has three objectives. First, it provides a conceptual overview of the distinction between the nationalist and transnationalist models. second, it illustrates the application of the two models by reference to recent judicial decisions implicating the Geneva Conventions. The analysis shows that U.S. courts have applied both models in Geneva Convention cases, even though the two models are mutually inconsistent. Third, the essay shows that the transnationalist model has deep historical roots, dating back to the eighteenth century, whereas the emergence of the nationalist model is largely a post-World War II development. This essay does not present original historical analysis: it merely summarizes the historical analysis developed by this author and other scholars in previous publications. The nationalist and transnationalist models provide radically different answers to three questions: (1) do treaties have the status of law in the U. …" @default.
• W3126010810 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3126010810 creator A5068117447 @default.
• W3126010810 date "2007-10-01" @default.
• W3126010810 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3126010810 title "Schizophrenic Treaty Law" @default.
• W3126010810 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W3126010810 type Work @default.
• W3126010810 sameAs 3126010810 @default.
• W3126010810 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3126010810 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3126010810 hasAuthorship W3126010810A5068117447 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C2778573023 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C2779010840 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C2779100428 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConcept C38671928 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C158129432 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C169437150 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C17744445 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C199539241 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C2778272461 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C2778573023 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C2779010840 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C2779100428 @default.
• W3126010810 hasConceptScore W3126010810C38671928 @default.
• W3126010810 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3126010810 hasLocation W31260108101 @default.
• W3126010810 hasOpenAccess W3126010810 @default.
• W3126010810 hasPrimaryLocation W31260108101 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W1509186650 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W1515936902 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W1531834230 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W1579617934 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W1583661810 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W1584204925 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W1748794650 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W2022933460 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W2023919361 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W2272276094 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W234924935 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W280711973 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W297977456 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W3003053514 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W3121624313 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W3122906923 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W3125749506 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W348149701 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W3121598325 @default.
• W3126010810 hasRelatedWork W3170595963 @default.
• W3126010810 hasVolume "43" @default.
• W3126010810 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3126010810 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3126010810 magId "3126010810" @default.
• W3126010810 workType "article" @default.