Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-8cnds Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:00:49.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“International Concern” and the Treaty Power of the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Louis Henkin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , April 1969 , pp. 272 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Henkin, , ‘ ‘ The Treaty Makers and the Law Makers: the Law of the Land and Foreign Eelations,” 107 U. Pa. Law Rev. 903, 933-935 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Compare, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 (1968).

3 See, e.g., MacChesney, “Should the United States Ratify the Covenants! A Question of Merits not of Constitutional Law,” 62 A.J.I.L. 912 (1968), and materials there cited. I, too, joined the debates on that assumption. See Henkin, , “The Constitution, Treaties, and International Human Eights,” 116 U. Pa. Law Rev. 10–12 (1968).Google Scholar I am now suggesting a position going beyond the one assumed there.

4 1929 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 194, 195-196. Jefferson, and others, suggested another limitation, that a treaty may deal only with “those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and can not be otherwise regulated.” That limitation might coincide with “international concern” to some extent, but is different in scope and significance. It has long ago been discarded. See Henkin, loc. cit. note 3, at 1020-1022.

5 Hughes, ‘ ‘ The Outlook for Pan Americanism—Some Observations on the Sixth International Conference of American States,” 1928 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 1, 12.

6 Power Authority v. PPC, 247 F. 2d 538 (D.C. Cir.), vacated as moot, 355 V. 8. 64 (1957). That case, I believe, was wrongly decided but, in any event, it did not depend on the Hughes doctrine. The Court in effect said that a particular Senate reservation was not part of the treaty, because it related only to the American legislative process and did not concern Canada, the other party to the treaty, in any way. That would fall exactly within Jefferson's narrow proposition quoted above.

7 §117(1): “The United States has the power under the Constitution to make an international agreement if (a) the matter is of international concern… . “

8 See, e.g., Eauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483 (1879); Santovicenzo v. Egan, 284 U. S. 30 (1931) (opinion by Chief Justice Hughes). Some matters which it was once thought “normally and appropriately are within the local jurisdiction of the States,” apart from treaty, are no longer so, since the Court held that the Constitution itself bars “intrusion by the States into the field of foreign affairs.” Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429 (1968).

As even the Eestatement's comment recognizes: “Matters of international concern are not confined to matters exclusively concerned with foreign relations. Usually, matters of international concern have both international and domestic effects, and the existence of the latter does not remove a matter from international concern.''

9 Compare the treaties in the cases cited in note 8; also in Asakura v. Seattle, 265 U. S. 332 (1924).

10 See, e.g., the opinions which Chief Justice Hughes joined in Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506 (1937); Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U. S. 40, 44-45 (1933). Associate Justice Hughes had joined the Court's opinion in Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308 (1913).

11 See Santovicenzo v. Egan, note 8 above.