The Alien Tort Statute - Assignment Example

Download file to see previous pages The use of ATS boosts America’s image as a country that does not compromise on human rights and freedoms violations. The rest of the diplomatic world is compelled to automatically follow this example. This means that human rights and freedom are increasingly upheld and safeguarded. One of the downsides of the ATS is its penchant for flooding (the US) court systems with a barrage of cases that have very little resolve, if at all.

Question 2
The Grounds on Which the Senators Protested
The premise upon which the Senators protested is worthy of credence. Particularly, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton by appending her signature to the ASEAN treaty endorsed the agreement, without letting it undergo the appraisal of the Senate, as should be the case. Thus, Clinton’s act was a contravention of the US Constitution, art 2, § II and art 6, § II which mandates the issuance of the Senate’s consent and advice. The Senate bill, item, or proposal must garner a two-thirds majority to be ratified as the law of the land.

According to Auerswald and Maltzman (2003), there is a dire need to uphold the Constitution's provision for the Senate to 'advise and consent on treaties, in light of trends towards global governance. This is because; entering bilateral or multilateral treaties is binding upon nations. Because of this, treaties can be said to be too sacrosanct to be left to the whims of the executive. For instance, the purpose of the ASEAN treaty was to promote lasting peace and international cooperation in Southeast Asia by building, strengthening, and solidifying diplomatic relations. The guidelines of the Treaty of Amity (TAC) were also binding herein and demanding of principles such as mutual respect for sovereignty, noninterference, the right to political autonomy, and effective cooperation. These policies are too serious to be left to the whims of the executive.

Question 3
Euro-governance
Euro-governance refers to the political, legal, and social developments of the European Union which are aimed at achieving the economic objectives of the euro (Payandeh, 2010).

Whether Rabkin, Slaughter, and Burke-White are talking about the same phenomenon
By far, it is a fact that William W. Burke-White, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Jeremy A. Rabkin are talking about the same phenomenon. Burke-White, Slaughter, and Rabkin are not just experts in international law, but they also speak on the same concept. For instance, Burke-White vouches for the effectiveness of international tribunals and courts, investment protection, investor-state arbitration, International Criminal Court (ICC), transnational justice, the fostering of human rights, and criminal law. He also acknowledges the need for the government to address sovereign bankruptcy, international human rights, violations of amnesty legislation, and responses to emergencies.

Conversely, Slaughter also speaks of the need to tackle worldwide terrorist and criminal networks, the International Criminal Court, the need to protect civilians in the Arab spring, global pandemics, climate change, and regulating the flow of swathes of remittance that stunt economic development (Payandeh, 2010).

Jeremy E. Rabkin also acknowledges these aforementioned values and duties, only that he stresses the role of sovereignty in international relations. Rabkin maintains that claiming sovereignty is claiming a well-known status among nations that have legitimate prerogatives that are defined in international conduct. He postulates that though sovereign states may be by rules that govern mutual diplomacy, nations may yet disagree on specific applications of general rules. This does not mean that he sees the need to tackle worldwide terrorist and criminal networks, the International Criminal Court, the need to protect civilians in the Arab Spring, global pandemics, and climate change as illegitimate. Nevertheless, the point of departure is that Rabkin sees the ICC as a kangaroo court.

Question 4
The Hierarchy of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Laws, and Treaties
In the US, the US Constitution is considered as being the topmost in the hierarchy. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and provides the very basis for the existence of the US citizens’ rights and freedoms and the US government. Conversely, all human and non-human entities are subject to the US Constitution and no law can be legislated if it contradicts the principles therein. Nevertheless, it cannot be argued in an outright manner, whether international treaties are subservient to federal statutes (US laws), or vice versa. Particularly, this is because both international treaties are subservient to federal statutes and are equally considered parts of the supreme law of the land. In case of a legal conflict between the two, the one that is more specific or latest in time will uphold (Fallon, 2011).













...Download file to see next pages Read More