Brigham Young University (BYU) law professor David H. Moore gave a lecture focused on the relationship between international law and its domestic enforcement in the United States at the Eck Hall of Law on Thursday, sponsored by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy.Moore said there is a fundamental conflict between two concepts: the effectiveness of international law and the integrity of proper domestic governance.“In my opinion, the Supreme Court is trying to accommodate both concerns in their decisions,” Moore said.According to Moore, the primary sources of international law are treaties, which are formal legal agreements between nations, and customary international law, which consists of non-binding conventions that countries traditionally follow. Illustrating this distinction with an example, Moore said diplomatic immunity existed as a informal mutual agreement between countries before it was codified into law with formal treaties.Moore then explained the principle of self-execution. International law that is ratified by the U.S. must include a provision that specifies in what way it should be enforced to fulfill the standard of self-execution. Otherwise, Moore said, international law cannot be enforced in the U.S., absent of authorization from a branch of government.“However, a broad notion of non-self-execution violates the Supremacy Clause [of the Constitution],” Moore said. “This is because the Supremacy Clause states that formally ratified treaties must be treated as the law of the land.”Moore said the case of Medellin v. Texas demonstrates the principle of non-self-execution. Medellin, a convicted Mexican national on death row, appealed his conviction because Texas legal authorities failed to allow him to contact the Mexican consulate in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Supreme Court sided with Texas and decided that international treaties are not applicable to domestic law unless Congress implements an enforcement statute or the treaties include self-executing provisions.“There are two basic views on relationship between customary international law and federal common law,” Moore said.The modern position believes international law can be enforced to a large extent by the courts while the revisionist camp argues it can only be enforced as authorized by Congress or the executive branch.Moore referenced the case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain to show how the Supreme Court interprets these two views. The case involved a suspected cartel member who had been abducted to face murder charges by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. The court held that an abducted foreign national could face prosecution, but the act of kidnapping itself might be a violation of international law and thus provide grounds for civil litigation under the Alien Tort Statute.“Most scholars see the court’s decision as a victory for the modern view, but I think they confuse two questions: whether Alien Tort Statute creates a cause of action and whether customary international law is federal common law in the absence of political branch intent,” Moore said.In fact, Moore said the court’s analysis actually endorses the revisionist position with its focus on Congressional intent and concern with separation of powers.“Academic commentary is out of step,” Moore said. “Incorporation [of international law] through the political branches is the appropriate direction.”Tags: David H. Moore, domestic governance, international law, Law
New Delhi: Sourav Ganguly was officially appointed as the 39th president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) at the Annual General Meeting in Mumbai on Wednesday. However, the former India captain has given a big statement on the future of MS Dhoni. There has been plenty of speculations about Dhoni and his Indian cricket team future after he opted for a two-month sabbatical following India’s exit in the 2019 World Cup semi-final against New Zealand. Since then, Dhoni was not considered for selection in the West Indies, South Africa and Bangladesh series. Speaking in the press conference after the end of the Annual General Meeting, Ganguly said, “Champions don’t finish very quickly. Till I am around, everybody will be respected.” These words indicate that Dhoni might not be unceremoniously dumped and that his future might be safe with the Indian cricket team for at least the near future. Recently, Dhoni had spoken up about his feelings in his first interaction on the sidelines of a promotional event. The former India skipper had said, “I am like everyone else but I control my emotions better than some of the other individuals. I would say, I feel equally frustrated. I also feel angry at times, disappointed. But what is important is that none of these feelings are constructive. What needs to be done right now is more important than any of these emotions. What is the next thing I can plan? Who is the next individual, whom I can use? Once I get into it, I am controlling my emotions in a much better way,” Dhoni said. Also Read | Sourav Ganguly’s First Reaction On Dhoni’s Retirement After Taking Over As BCCI ChiefPrior to being appointed as the BCCI chief, Ganguly had outlined that he planned to speak to Dhoni, the selectors and Kohli on what is the way forward regarding team selection and dynamics. “Let’s see what Dhoni wants. I will find out from the selectors when I meet them on 24th. I will find out what the selectors are thinking. Then I will put my opinion,” Ganguly had said last week. For all the Latest Sports News News, Cricket News News, Download News Nation Android and iOS Mobile Apps.