------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: "James Michael Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:20:49 PST8PDT
Subject: (Fwd) Genocide IV
13. "The instrument of treaty ratification [UN Convention on Genocide]
which the Senate instructed Ronald Reagan to deposit with the U.N.
Secretary-General in November of 1988 contained a 'Resolution of
Ratification' (S. Exec. Rep. 2 99th Cong, 1st Sess. 26-27 [1985],
adopted on Feb 19, 1986; often referred to as 'The Lugar-Helms-Hatch
Sovereignty Package'). The resolution contained a reservation
(Article I (2)) stating:
[N]othing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation
or other action by the United States of America prohibited by
the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the
United States.
It is thus plain that the Senate sought, even while enacting
legislation to 'implement' the Genocide Convention and effecting a
corresponding ratification of its terms by treaty, to exempt the U.S.
from the implications of international law, custom, and convention.
In effect, it sought to elevate the U.S. Constitution to a status
above that of the Laws of Nations. As has been noted elsewhere,
'the acknowledged purpose of the Sovereignty Package was to reduce
the convention to nothing more than a mere symbol of opposition to
genocide. This fact alone raises the question of whether the United
States ratified in good faith.' ( Lawrence J. LeBlanc, The United
States and the Genocide Convention p.98, Durham, NC, Duke Univ Press,
1991) The Package has been described by a Senate Committee as an
'embarrassment to the United States' insofar as it clearly suggests
that the U.S. formally seeks to retain prerogatives to engage in or
sanction policies and activities commonly understood as being
genocidal, even while professing to condemn genocide. (S. Exec. Rep.
No. 2 99th Cong, 1st Session, 1987, p.32; the resport also points out
that 'a question arises as to what the United States is really
seeking to accomplish by attaching this understanding. The language
suggests the United States fears it has something to hide.' [footnote
14 p. 48 in Churchill, Ibid)
quoted in Churchill, Ibid, pp 17-18
14. "There is abundant evidence that the Senate was aware, even as
it advanced its 'Sovereignty Package' purportint to subordinate the
Genocide Convention to the U.S. Constitution, that the gesture
contradicted the requirements of the constitution itself. Not the
least indicator of this lies in the testimony of an expert witness,
American Bar Association representative George Finch, in his
testimony before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee during its 1950
hearings on the matter. After observing that a formal treaty would be
required in order for the U.S. to become a party of record in the
Convention, Finch observed that 'By the United States Constitution
[Article VI, Section 2] treaties are 'the supreme law of the land,
and judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'
[U.S. SEnate, Hearings on the Genocide Convention Before a
Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, D.C. 81st Cong, 2nd Sess., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1978, 9.217] In other words, the government would be unable
to unilaterally legislate exceptions for itself with regard to the
terms, provisions, and understandings of the Genocide Convention if
it were ratified by treaty." (Churchill Ibid p. 18)
15. "On its face, the problem might seem to have been resolved,
domestically at least, by a Supreme Court opinion rendered in Reid v
Covert (354 U.S. 1, 1957) that 'any treaty provision that is
inconsistent with the United States Constitution would simply be
invalid under national law.' Under Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, however, no country can invoke the
provisions of its internal law as a reason for not abiding by a
treaty obligation.[ L. Henkin, et al "International Law: Cases and
Materials" Charlottesville, VA, The Michie Company, 1980, p. 264]
Although the United States is not yet a signatory to the Vienna
Convention, it has officially recognized it as being the 'definitive'
promulgation of the Laws of Nations with regard to treaty relations.
[ Michla Pomerance, "The ADvisory Function of the International Court
in the League and U.N. Eras", Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1973, pp. 115-25] Hence the SEnate's attempt to carve out
exemptions for the U.S. from the force of international law has no
international legal integrity, and is subject to protest or
renunciation by other parties to the Genocide Convention (Ibid.
pp18-19)
James Craven
Dept. of Economics,Clark College
1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (360)992-2283(Office),2863(fax)
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,
AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE,
under the authority of the United States, SHALL
BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges
in every State SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANYTHING
IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE
CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." (Article VI, Sec. 2)
*My Employer has no association with My Private and Protected Opinion*
