74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

Treaties

Summary

I. In General

Research References

§ 1. Generally

§ 2. Definitions and distinctions

§ 3. Executory and self-executing treaties

§ 4. Treaty as municipal law

§ 5. Federal treaty power

§ 6. Subject matter of treaties

§ 7. Negotiation and ratification

§ 8. Effective date

§ 9. Modification

§ 10. Termination

§ 11. --Effect of war

§ 12. Observance and breach

II. Relation of Treaty to Other Laws and Statutes

Research References

§ 13. Generally

§ 14. Conflict with federal law

§ 15. --With prior statute

§ 16. --With subsequent statute

§ 17. Conflict with state law

§ 18. --Presumptions and inferences

III. Construction

Research References

§ 19. Generally

§ 20. Power and function of courts

§ 21. --Omissions, insertions, and implications

§ 22. Liberal or strict construction

§ 23. Practical construction

§ 24. Intent

§ 25. Rule of uberrima fides

§ 26. Rule of pari materia

§ 27. Rule of ejusdem generis

§ 28. Extraneous documents

§ 29. Several languages

§ 30. History and purpose

§ 31. Meaning of words

§ 32. --Particular terms

IV. Enforcement

Research References

§ 33. Generally

§ 34. As international compact

§ 35. As municipal law

Correlation Tables

Correlation Table

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties Summary

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

Correlation Table

Summary

Scope:

This article includes a discussion of the relation of treaties to statutes, the proper subject matter of treaties, and

rules relating to the interpretation of treaties.

Federal Aspects:

Treaties are naturally within the power of the federal government, as provided by Article 2, section 2 of the

Constitution, and as such, the topic is inherently federal in nature. Note, however, that individual treaties are not

discussed in this article as the article is devoted to general matters relating to treaties.

Treated Elsewhere:

Alliances, war, and peace, see 78 Am. Jur. 2d, War

Commercial intercourse with other nations, see 21A Am. Jur. 2d, Customs Duties and Import Regulations §§ 12 to

22

Consuls and diplomatic agents, privileges and immunities of, see 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Ambassadors and Consuls §§ 7 to

16

Extradition of criminals: International extradition, see 31A Am. Jur. 2d, Extradition §§ 12 to 21

Foreign citizens, rights of, see 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens

Immigration, see 3A Am. Jur. 2d, Aliens and Citizens §§ 1 et seq.

Indian treaties, see 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Indians §§ 55 to 57

National boundaries, see 45 Am. Jur. 2d, International Law §§ 26 to 29

Warsaw Convention, see 8A Am. Jur. 2d, Aviation §§ 149 to 159

Research References:

Primary Authority

U.S. Const. Art. 1 § 10

U.S. Const. Art. 2 § 2

U.S. Const. Art. 6

A.L.R. Library

A.L.R. Digest: Treaties

A.L.R. Index: Treaties

Forms

23A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Treaties

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES SUM

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties I Refs.

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table

Research References

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 1 to 6, 9, 10, 12

Primary Authority

U.S. Const. Art. 1 § 10

U.S. Const. Art. 2 § 2

A.L.R. Library

A.L.R. Digest: Treaties §§ 1, 6

A.L.R. Index: Treaties

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES I REF

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 1

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 1. Generally

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 1

A.L.R. Library

Recoverability of Reparations from Corporations for Nazi-Related Conduct, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 279

Trial Strategy

Proof of a Claim Involving Stolen Art or Antiquities, 77 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 259

Law Reviews and Other Periodicals

Denning, Ramsey, American Insurance Association v. Garamendi and Executive Preemption in Foreign Affairs, 46

Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 825 (2004)

Gupta, Casenote: A Portrait of Justice Deferred: Retroactive Application of the FSIA and its Implications for

Holocaust Era Art Restitution. Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 124 S. Ct. 2240 (2004), 30 U. Dayton L. Rev.

373 (2005)

Vzquez, Note and Comment, The Right of War Crime Victim to Compensation before National Court, Altmann v.

Austria and the Retroactivity of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 3 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 207 (2005)

Shirinova, Challenges to Establishing Jurisdiction Over Holocaust Era Claims in Federal Court, 34 Golden Gate U.

L. Rev. 159 (2004)

Wernicke, The "Retroactive" Application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Recovering Nazi Looted Art,

72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1103 (2004)

Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II, 37 Vand. J.

Transnat'l L. 333 (2004)

Gattini, To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals' Claims for War

Damages?, 1 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 348 (2003)

Murphy, Implementation of German Holocaust Claims Agreement, 97 Am. J. Int'l L. 692 (2003)

Bazyler and Fitzgerald, Trading With the Enemy: Holocaust Restitution, the United States Government, and

American Industry, 28 Brook. J. Int'l L. 683 (2003)

Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 11 (2002)

Bayzler, www.swissbanks.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks,

25 Fordham Int'l L.J. S64 (2002)

Bayzler, Litigating the Holocaust, Nuremberg in America: Litigating the Holocaust in American Courts, 34 U.

Rich. L. Rev. 1 (2000)

A treaty or statute of the United States, if there is one, constitutes the most certain guide for determining

international law in private litigation.[FN1] However, a citizen of a state who is prosecuted under a state statute

in a state court is in no position to invoke the treaty rights of foreign countries or of their nationals.[FN2] A

foreign sovereign cannot by treaty or otherwise impart to the United States any of his prerogatives.[FN3] With

the exception of its general humanitarian intent, a treaty cannot impose uncontemplated extraterritorial

obligations on those who ratify it.[FN4]

[FN1] Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S. Ct. 139, 40 L. Ed. 95 (1895).

-

[FN2] Skiriotes v. State of Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 61 S. Ct. 924, 85 L. Ed. 1193 (1941).

-

[FN3] Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 3 How. 212, 11 L. Ed. 565 (1845).

-

[FN4] Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 113 S. Ct. 2549, 125 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1993).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 1

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 2

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 2. Definitions and distinctions

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 1

All compacts between nations are described either as "conventions" or as "treaties," there being no very

substantial distinction in the force ascribed to these terms. Ordinarily, a "treaty" is understood to mean an

instrument written and executed with the formalities customary among nations, although it is not to be

understood that any particular form is indispensable.[FN1]

A treaty is primarily an agreement or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns,[FN2] with view

to public welfare,[FN3] entered into by agents appointed for that purpose, and duly sanctioned by the supreme

powers of the respective parties.[FN4] The only requisite is that each of the contracting parties possesses the

right of self-government and the power to perform the stipulations of the treaty.[FN5] In the language of the law

of nations the term "treaty" implies political relations.[FN6] In its nature it is not a legislative act.[FN7] A treaty

ratified by the United States is not only the law of the land, but also an agreement among sovereign

powers.[FN8]

[FN1] Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540, 10 L. Ed. 579 (1840).

-

[FN2] Rainey v. U.S., 232 U.S. 310, 34 S. Ct. 429, 58 L. Ed. 617 (1914); Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S.

Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274 (1913); New York Chinese TV Programs, Inc. v. U.E. Enterprises, Inc., 954 F.2d 847

(2d Cir. 1992).

-

[FN3] Mangattu v. M/V Ibn Hayyan, 35 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 1994).

-

[FN4] Cherokee Nation v. State of Ga., 30 U.S. 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831).

-

[FN5] Worcester v. State of Ga., 31 U.S. 515, 8 L. Ed. 483 (1832).

-

[FN6] Rainey v. U.S., 232 U.S. 310, 34 S. Ct. 429, 58 L. Ed. 617 (1914); Marks v. U.S., 31 Ct. Cl. 453, 161

U.S. 297, 16 S. Ct. 476, 40 L. Ed. 706 (1896).

-

[FN7] Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 7 L. Ed. 415 (1829) (overruled on other grounds in part by, U.S. v.

Percheman, 32 U.S. 51, 8 L. Ed. 604 (1833)) and (overruling recognized by, Beggerly v. U.S., 114 F.3d 484

(5th Cir. 1997)) and (overruling recognized by, White v. Paulsen, 997 F. Supp. 1380 (E.D. Wash. 1998)) and

(overruling recognized by, Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (C.D. Cal. 1999)).

-

[FN8] Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 516 U.S. 217, 116 S. Ct. 629, 133 L. Ed. 2d 596 (1996);

Dreyfus v. Von Finck, 534 F.2d 24, 34 A.L.R. Fed. 377 (2d Cir. 1976); Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum

Corp., 595 F.2d 1287 (3d Cir. 1979).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 2

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 3

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 3. Executory and self-executing treaties

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 12

A.L.R. Library

Recoverability of Reparations from Corporations for Nazi-Related Conduct, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 279

Trial Strategy

Proof of a Claim Involving Stolen Art or Antiquities, 77 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 259

Law Reviews and Other Periodicals

Denning, Ramsey, American Insurance Association v. Garamendi and Executive Preemption in Foreign Affairs, 46

Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 825 (2004)

Gupta, Casenote: A Portrait of Justice Deferred: Retroactive Application of the FSIA and its Implications for

Holocaust Era Art Restitution. Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 124 S. Ct. 2240 (2004), 30 U. Dayton L. Rev.

373 (2005)

Vzquez, Note and Comment, The Right of War Crime Victim to Compensation before National Court, Altmann v.

Austria and the Retroactivity of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 3 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 207 (2005)

Shirinova, Challenges to Establishing Jurisdiction Over Holocaust Era Claims in Federal Court, 34 Golden Gate U.

L. Rev. 159 (2004)

Wernicke, The "Retroactive" Application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Recovering Nazi Looted Art,

72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1103 (2004)

Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II, 37 Vand. J.

Transnat'l L. 333 (2004)

Gattini, To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals' Claims for War

Damages?, 1 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 348 (2003)

Murphy, Implementation of German Holocaust Claims Agreement, 97 Am. J. Int'l L. 692 (2003)

Bazyler and Fitzgerald, Trading With the Enemy: Holocaust Restitution, the United States Government, and

American Industry, 28 Brook. J. Int'l L. 683 (2003)

Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 11 (2002)

Bayzler, www.swissbanks.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks,

25 Fordham Int'l L.J. S64 (2002)

Bayzler, Litigating the Holocaust, Nuremberg in America: Litigating the Holocaust in American Courts, 34 U.

Rich. L. Rev. 1 (2000)

Treaties may be classified as executory and self-executing. An executory treaty is one in which the terms of

the stipulation import a contract when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act.[FN1] Such a

treaty addresses itself to the political department of the government, not the judicial,[FN2] and in this respect,

the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the court.[FN3] On the other hand, a

self-executing treaty is one that operates of itself without the aid of legislation.[FN4] If the treaty provisions are

self-executing, it is unnecessary to plead the treaty's existence.[FN5] It is the equivalent of an act of

Congress,[FN6] and insofar as it affects individual rights, it is a part of the municipal law of the country.[FN7]

Observation: At least four factors are to be considered when determining whether a treaty is self-executing:

purposes of the treaty and the objectives of its creators; the existence of domestic procedures and institutions

appropriate for direct implementation; the availability and feasibility of alternative enforcement methods; and

the immediate and long-range social consequences of self or nonself-execution.[FN8]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

It is up to Congress whether to implement obligations undertaken under treaty which does not itself have

force and effect of domestic law. Medellin v. Texas, 129 S. Ct. 360, 171 L. Ed. 2d 833 (2008).

While treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress

has enacted implementing statutes or treaty itself conveys intention that it be self-executing and is ratified on

that basis. Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190 (U.S. 2008).

President has array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but

unilaterally converting non-self-executing treaty into self-executing one is not among them; responsibility for

transforming international obligation arising from non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress.

Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190 (U.S. 2008).

President has array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but

unilaterally converting non-self-executing treaty into self-executing one is not among them; responsibility for

transforming international obligation arising from non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress.

Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190 (2008).

Articles 33 and 34 of 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to Status of Refugees, concerning expulsion of

refugees, were not self-executing and provided no enforceable rights, and thus one-year statutory deadline for

filing asylum application was not in conflict with Protocol and did not violate Supremacy Clause. Calderon

Salinas v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 140 Fed. Appx. 868 (11th Cir. 2005).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] Mayor, Aldermen and Inhabitants of City of New Orleans v. De Armas, 34 U.S. 224, 9 L. Ed. 109

(1835); Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 7 L. Ed. 415 (1829) (overruled on other grounds in part by, U.S. v.

Percheman, 32 U.S. 51, 8 L. Ed. 604 (1833)) and (overruling recognized Beggerly v. U.S., 114 F.3d 484 (5th

Cir. 1997)) and (overruling recognized by, White v. Paulsen, 997 F. Supp. 1380 (E.D. Wash. 1998)) and

(overruling recognized by, Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (C.D. Cal. 1999)).

-

[FN2] Kelly v. Hedden, 124 U.S. 196, 8 S. Ct. 459, 31 L. Ed. 389 (1888); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190,

8 S. Ct. 456, 31 L. Ed. 386 (1888); Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 7 L. Ed. 415 (1829) (overruled on other

grounds in part by, U.S. v. Percheman, 32 U.S. 51, 8 L. Ed. 604 (1833)) and (overruling recognized by,

Beggerly v. U.S., 114 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 1997)) and (overruling recognized by, White v. Paulsen, 997 F. Supp.

1380 (E.D. Wash. 1998)) and (overruling recognized by, Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1244

(C.D. Cal. 1999)).

-

[FN3] U.S. v. Arredondo, 31 U.S. 691, 8 L. Ed. 547 (1832).

-

[FN4] Bacardi Corporation of America v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 150, 61 S. Ct. 219, 85 L. Ed. 98 (1940); Haitian

Refuge Center, Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109 (11th Cir. 1991).

-

[FN5] Butschkowski v. Brecks, 94 Neb. 532, 143 N.W. 923 (1913).

-

[FN6] § 13.

-

[FN7] § 4.

-

[FN8] Islamic Republic of Iran v. Boeing Co., 771 F.2d 1279, 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1178 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.

dismissed, 479 U.S. 957, 107 S. Ct. 450, 93 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1986); Air Transport Ass'n of America v. City of

Los Angeles, 844 F. Supp. 550 (C.D. Cal. 1994).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 3

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 4

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 4. Treaty as municipal law

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

A self-executing treaty entered into by the United States in accordance with constitutional requirements

which does not require legislation to carry these provisions into effect,[FN1] is a municipal law as well as an

international contract.[FN2] The effect of the provision of the supremacy clause of the Federal

Constitution[FN3] is to incorporate into the municipal law of the United States, and of each and every state,

treaties entered into by the Federal government within the constitutional limits of the treaty-making power,

insofar as they affect individual rights.[FN4] Under such constitutional provision, a public treaty is not merely a

compact or bargain to be carried out by the executive and legislative departments of the general government,

but a living law, operating upon and binding the judicial tribunals, state and federal; and these tribunals are

under the same obligation to note it and give it effect as they are to notice and enforce the Constitution and the

laws of Congress made in pursuance thereof.[FN5]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Under the domestic or "municipal" law of the United States, it is the province of the Senate to give its

consent vel non to the treaty negotiated by the President and submitted to the Senate for its consideration; and if

two thirds of the Senators present vote in favor of that treaty, the President may ratify it. Avero Belgium Ins. v.

American Airlines, Inc., 423 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2005).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] § 3.

-

[FN2] Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt, 101 Minn. 197, 112 N.W. 395 (1907).

-

[FN3] § 13.

-

[FN4] Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 57 S. Ct. 100, 81 L. Ed. 5 (1936); Asakura v. City of

Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 44 S. Ct. 515, 68 L. Ed. 1041 (1924), opinion amended, 44 S. Ct. 634 (U.S. 1924).

-

[FN5] § 33.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 4

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 5

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 5. Federal treaty power

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 2

The Constitution of the United States specifically provides for the making of treaties by the Federal

government,[FN1] by stating that the President "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the

Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."[FN2] A "treaty" which requires

only the consent of the President of the United States is not a treaty for purposes of Article II of the Federal

Constitution.[FN3] The United Nations Charter is, so far as the United States is concerned, an exercise of the

treaty-making power under the Federal Constitution.[FN4]

It is uniformly conceded that a treaty cannot be considered as the law of the land within the meaning of the

Federal Constitution, and as such binding on the courts, if in making it the limits of the treaty-making power

have been exceeded.[FN5] While there is no such limitation as to subject matter on the treaty-making power as

exists in the case of the legislative power, nevertheless, the federal power to enter into treaties does not extend

to the making of treaties which change the Constitution[FN6] or which are inconsistent with our form of

government, with the relations of the states and the United States, or with the Federal Constitution, nor does it

extend so far as to authorize a cession of any portion of the territory of one of the states without its

consent.[FN7]

The Constitution prohibits the several states from entering into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, and,

without the consent of Congress, from entering into any agreement with another state, or with a foreign power

in order to prevent any union of two or more states having a tendency to break up or weaken the league between

the whole.[FN8] These constitutional articles were not designed to prevent arrangements between adjoining

states to facilitate the free intercourse of their citizens or remove barriers to peace and prosperity.[FN9]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Treaties made pursuant to the treaty power can authorize Congress to deal with matters with which

otherwise Congress could not deal. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 2, cl. 2. U.S. v. Lara, 124 S. Ct. 1628, 158 L. Ed.

2d 420 (U.S. 2004).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A.L.R. 984 (1920).

-

[FN2] U.S. Const. Art. 2 § 2.

-

[FN3] Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 102 S. Ct. 1510, 71 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1982).

-

[FN4] Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70, 75 S. Ct. 614, 99 L. Ed. 897 (1955).

- For the text of the United Nations Charter, see Am Jur 2d Desk Book, Item No. 69.

-

[FN5] Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 44 S. Ct. 515, 68 L. Ed. 1041 (1924), opinion amended, 44 S.

Ct. 634 (U.S. 1924); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227 (1870); Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. 635,

16 How. 635, 14 L. Ed. 1090 (1853).

-

[FN6] Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. 211, 21 L. Ed. 523 (1872); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227

(1870); Pagano v. Cerri, 93 Ohio St. 345, 112 N.E. 1037 (1916).

- See Seery v. U. S., 130 Ct. Cl. 481, 127 F. Supp. 601 (1955), holding that whatever may be the true doctrine

as to formally ratified treaties which conflict with the Constitution, an executive agreement cannot impair

constitutional rights.

-

[FN7] De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890); Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v.

Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264 (1885); In re Heikich Terui, 187 Cal. 20, 200 P. 954, 17 A.L.R.

630 (1921).

-

[FN8] U.S. Const. Art. 1 § 10.

-

[FN9] Wharton v. Wise, 153 U.S. 155, 14 S. Ct. 783, 38 L. Ed. 669 (1894).

- As to compacts between the states, generally, 72 Am. Jur. 2d, States, Territories, and Dependencies § 5.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 5

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 6

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 6. Subject matter of treaties

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

Inasmuch as the treaty-making power is given in general terms, without any description of the objects

intended to be embraced within its scope,[FN1] it must be assumed that the framers of the Constitution intended

that it should extend to all those objects which in the intercourse of nations had usually been regarded as the

proper subjects of negotiation and treaty.[FN2] Accordingly, the treaty-making power extends to all subjects

within the international domain, and to all subjects of international concern and negotiation,[FN3] but is limited,

nevertheless, to subjects and treaties not inconsistent with our form of government, with the relations of the

states and the United States, or with the Federal Constitution.[FN4] However, with these exceptions, it is not

perceived that there is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted touching any matter which is properly

the subject of negotiation with a foreign country.[FN5] What the United States Government does, or even what

the states do, anywhere in the ocean, is a subject upon which the nation may enter into and assume treaty or

similar international obligations.[FN6]

Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while

treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States.[FN7] The treaty-making

power is not subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the power of Congress to enact

legislation, and treaties may accordingly be made which affect rights exclusively under the control of the

states.[FN8] Thus, the power extends to providing that the subjects of the other contracting party shall not be

subject to other or different taxation than are the subjects of the state where they are domiciled.[FN9]

[FN1] § 5.

-

[FN2] Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. 211, 21 L. Ed. 523 (1872); U.S. v. Rockefeller, 260 F. 346 (D. Mont. 1919).

-

[FN3] U.S. v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 62 S. Ct. 552, 86 L. Ed. 796 (1942); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332,

44 S. Ct. 515, 68 L. Ed. 1041 (1924), opinion amended, 44 S. Ct. 634 (U.S. 1924); Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S.

453, 11 S. Ct. 897, 35 L. Ed. 581 (1891); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642

(1890).

-

[FN4] § 5.

-

[FN5] Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 11 S. Ct. 897, 35 L. Ed. 581 (1891); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258,

10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890).

-

[FN6] U.S. v. State of Cal., 332 U.S. 19, 67 S. Ct. 1658, 91 L. Ed. 1889 (1947), opinion supplemented, 332 U.S.

804, 68 S. Ct. 20, 92 L. Ed. 382 (1947) and petition denied, 334 U.S. 855, 68 S. Ct. 1517, 92 L. Ed. 1776

(1948).

-

[FN7] State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A.L.R. 984 (1920).

-

[FN8] Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 44 S. Ct. 515, 68 L. Ed. 1041 (1924), opinion amended, 44 S.

Ct. 634 (U.S. 1924); State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A.L.R. 984

(1920).

-

[FN9] Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264, 18 S. Ct. 340, 42 L. Ed. 740 (1898); In re Heikich Terui, 187 Cal. 20, 200

P. 954, 17 A.L.R. 630 (1921).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 6

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 7

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 7. Negotiation and ratification

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 3

In every sovereign state or nation, the power of negotiating treaties with other nations is an inherent attribute

of its sovereignty. Under the Federal Constitution[FN1] the power to negotiate treaties is vested in the

President.[FN2] Congress is powerless to invade the field of international negotiations.[FN3] Moreover, it

would be unreasonable to construe an act of Congress in such a manner as would enable individuals to

embarrass the treaty-making power in negotiations with foreign governments.[FN4]

It is an implied condition in negotiating with foreign powers that the treaties concluded by the executive

government shall be subject to ratification in the manner prescribed by the fundamental laws of the state.[FN5]

In the United States, under its Constitution,[FN6] treaties are made by the President by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. The Senate is not required to adopt or

reject a proposed treaty as a whole, but may modify or amend the proposal.[FN7]

Inasmuch as the obligation of a treaty is deemed, as respects governmental rights, to commence at the date

of its signature by the authorized diplomatic representatives of the contracting nations,[FN8] any act or

proceeding between signing and ratification by either of the nations in contravention of the stipulations of the

compact must be a fraud upon the other party, and can have no validity consistently with a recognition of the

compact itself.[FN9]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

While the President alone has the authority to negotiate and ratify treaties, he cannot act unilaterally. Avero

Belgium Ins. v. American Airlines, Inc., 423 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2005).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] § 5.

-

[FN2] Franklin Mint Corp. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 690 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. granted, 462 U.S.

1118, 103 S. Ct. 3084, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1347 (1983) and judgment aff'd, 466 U.S. 243, 104 S. Ct. 1776, 80 L. Ed.

2d 273 (1984).

-

[FN3] U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304, 57 S. Ct. 216, 81 L. Ed. 255 (1936).

-

[FN4] Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U.S. 183, 19 How. 183, 15 L. Ed. 595 (1856).

-

[FN5] Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. 635, 16 How. 635, 14 L. Ed. 1090 (1853); In re Heikich Terui, 187 Cal. 20, 200

P. 954, 17 A.L.R. 630 (1921).

-

[FN6] § 5.

-

[FN7] New York Indians v. U.S., 170 U.S. 1, 18 S. Ct. 531, 42 L. Ed. 927 (1898); Haver v. Yaker, 76 U.S. 32,

19 L. Ed. 571 (1869).

-

Law Reviews and Other Periodicals

Conditional approval of treaties by the U.S. Senate, 19 Loyola LA Internat & Comp LJ 1:89 (1996).

[FN8] § 8.

-

[FN9] U.S. v. D'Auterive, 51 U.S. 609, 10 How. 609, 13 L. Ed. 560 (1850).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 7

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 8

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 8. Effective date

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

Under principles of international law, treaties must be considered as taking effect from the date of their

signature unless postponed by some condition or stipulation therein.[FN1] Thus, where, by its terms, a

commercial treaty is not to go into effect until it has been approved by Congress, Congress may give it

retrospective, immediate, or prospective operation.[FN2] However, the presumption is against an interpretation

of the required act that would give the treaty a retrospective operation, especially where the treaty provides for

reciprocal concessions, since by a retrospective interpretation of the treaty in the United States it would go into

operation therein prior to its operation in the other contracting country.[FN3] Words will not be construed thus

to operate unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or

unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied.[FN4]

Where the treaty operates on individual rights, the principle of relation does not apply to rights which were

vested before the treaty was ratified. Insofar as it affects them, it is not considered as concluded until there is an

exchange of ratifications.[FN5] The reason of the rule is apparent. A treaty is something more than a contract; a

self-executing treaty is a part of the municipal law.[FN6] Thus, before it can become a law, the Senate, in whom

rests the authority to ratify it, must agree to it. However, the Senate is not required to adopt or reject it as a

whole, but may modify or amend it.[FN7]

Inasmuch as the individual citizen on whose rights the treaty operates has no means of knowing anything of

it while it is before the Senate, it would be wrong in principle to hold him bound by it, as the law of the land,

until it was ratified and proclaimed. Also, to construe the law so as to make a ratification of the treaty relate

back to its signing, thereby divesting a right already vested, would be manifestly unjust, and cannot be

sanctioned.[FN8] The date when a treaty is to go into effect is to be fixed not by its provision that it is to

become operative 10 days after exchange of ratifications, but by an act of Congress, where the Senate has added

an amendment to the treaty declaring that it shall not take effect until approved by Congress.[FN9]

[FN1] Haver v. Yaker, 76 U.S. 32, 19 L. Ed. 571 (1869); U.S. v. D'Auterive, 51 U.S. 609, 10 How. 609, 13 L.

Ed. 560 (1850); Lazarou v. Moraros, 101 N.H. 383, 143 A.2d 669 (1958).

-

[FN2] U.S. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 202 U.S. 563, 26 S. Ct. 717, 50 L. Ed. 1149 (1906); Lazarou v.

Moraros, 101 N.H. 383, 143 A.2d 669 (1958).

-

[FN3] U.S. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 202 U.S. 563, 26 S. Ct. 717, 50 L. Ed. 1149 (1906).

-

[FN4] U.S. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 202 U.S. 563, 26 S. Ct. 717, 50 L. Ed. 1149 (1906); U.S. v. Burr,

159 U.S. 78, 15 S. Ct. 1002, 40 L. Ed. 82 (1895); Prevost v. Greneaux, 60 U.S. 1, 19 How. 1, 15 L. Ed. 572

(1856).

-

[FN5] Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222, 21 S. Ct. 762, 45 L. Ed. 1074 (1901); Haver v. Yaker, 76 U.S. 32, 19 L.

Ed. 571 (1869), affirming Yeaker's Heirs v. Yeaker's Heirs, 61 Ky. 33, 4 Met. 33, 1862 WL 77 (1862), aff'd, 76

U.S. 32, 19 L. Ed. 571 (1869); Board of County Com'rs of Dade County, Fla. v. Aerolineas Peruanasa, S. A.,

307 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1962); Lazarou v. Moraros, 101 N.H. 383, 143 A.2d 669 (1958).

-

[FN6] § 4.

-

[FN7] § 7.

-

[FN8] Haver v. Yaker, 76 U.S. 32, 19 L. Ed. 571 (1869).

-

[FN9] U.S. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 202 U.S. 563, 26 S. Ct. 717, 50 L. Ed. 1149 (1906).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 8

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 9

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 9. Modification

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

The obligations of a treaty cannot be changed or varied except by the same formalities by which they were

introduced, or at least by some act of as high an import and of as unequivocal an authority.[FN1] The intention

to abrogate or modify a treaty is not to be lightly imputed to Congress.[FN2] Congress may abrogate treaty or

international obligations entered into by United States only by clear statement of intent to do so.[FN3] A court

may not alter, amend, or add to any treaty, by inserting any clause.[FN4] A treaty may be modified by a

subsequent act of Congress which is inconsistent therewith.[FN5]

The effect of a treaty cannot be controlled by a Senate resolution adopted after the ratification of the treaty

by a vote of less than two-thirds of a quorum. To be efficacious, such resolution must be considered either as an

amendment to the treaty or as a legislative act qualifying or modifying the treaty, but it is neither.[FN6]

[FN1] The Amiable Isabella, 19 U.S. 1, 5 L. Ed. 191 (1821).

-

[FN2] Menominee Tribe of Indians v. U. S., 391 U.S. 404, 88 S. Ct. 1705, 20 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1968).

-

[FN3] Mississippi Poultry Ass'n, Inc. v. Madigan, 992 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1993), opinion amended, 9 F.3d 1113

(5th Cir. 1993), on reh'g, 31 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 1994) and reh'g en banc granted, 9 F.3d 1116 (5th Cir. 1993).

-

[FN4] § 21.

-

[FN5] § 16.

-

[FN6] The Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176, 22 S. Ct. 59, 46 L. Ed. 138 (1901).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 9

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 10

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 10. Termination

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 5

Compacts between nations are of different kinds and terminable in different ways. Frequently they are

expressed to endure for a specified period of years. Even where some of their stipulations are in their terms

perpetual, the obligations of treaties expire in case either of the contracting parties loses its existence as an

independent state, or in case its internal constitution is so changed as to render the treaty inapplicable to the new

condition of things. The political department of our government in several instances has considered treaties as

terminated when the sovereignty of the nation with which treaties had been concluded was destroyed by its

absorption into another sovereignty. However, where sovereignty in that respect is not extinguished, and the

power to execute remains unimpaired, outstanding treaties cannot be regarded as avoided because of

impossibility of performance.[FN1]

Except when there has been a change of government which has not been recognized,[FN2] a treaty entered

into with a sovereign inures to the benefit of his successors.[FN3] Also, a treaty entered into with a sovereign

inures to the benefit of a combination of nations subsequently formed with the sovereign as a nucleus.[FN4]

When a colonized state earns its independence from its colonial nation, there is a presumption that prior treaties

recognized by the former colonial power will devolve to the successor in interest nation.[FN5] The decision of

the political department of government respecting the existence of a treaty must be accepted as conclusive by

the judicial branch.[FN6] Governmental action must be regarded as of controlling importance in determining

the status of treaties, and thus, courts answer questions regarding the status of treaties following a change in the

sovereign status of one of the relevant entities by deferring to the political branches'understanding of the

resulting obligations.[FN7]

A treaty may be abrogated by the enactment of a subsequent statute which is entirely inconsistent

therewith,[FN8] and a state of war may effect change in treaty relationship.[FN9] The President has the

authority as Chief Executive to determine whether a treaty has terminated because of a breach and to determine

whether a treaty is at an end due to changed circumstances.[FN10] However, the abrogation of the obligations

of a treaty operates, like the repeal of a law, only upon the future, leaving transactions executed under it to stand

unaffected.[FN11]

Repeals by implication are never favored.[FN12]

[FN1] Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. 534 (1902).

-

[FN2] In re Eng's Estate, 228 Cal. App. 2d 160, 39 Cal. Rptr. 254 (2d Dist. 1964).

-

[FN3] The Sapphire, 78 U.S. 164, 20 L. Ed. 127 (1870).

-

[FN4] Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 81 S. Ct. 922, 6 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1961); Ivancevic v. Artukovic, 211

F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1954).

-

[FN5] U.S. ex rel. Saroop v. Garcia, 109 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 1997).

-

[FN6] Van Der Weyde v. Ocean Transport Co., 297 U.S. 114, 56 S. Ct. 392, 80 L. Ed. 515 (1936); Terlinden v.

Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. 534 (1902).

-

[FN7] New York Chinese TV Programs, Inc. v. U.E. Enterprises, Inc., 954 F.2d 847 (2d Cir. 1992); Mingtai

Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. United Parcel Service, 177 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 951,

120 S. Ct. 374, 145 L. Ed. 2d 292 (1999).

-

[FN8] § 16.

-

[FN9] § 11.

-

[FN10] Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1979), judgment vacated on other grounds, 444 U.S. 996,

100 S. Ct. 533, 62 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1979).

-

[FN11] Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884); Reichart v. Felps, 73 U.S. 160, 18

L. Ed. 849 (1867).

-

[FN12] § 21.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 10

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 11

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 11. Termination—Effect of war

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 5

The effect of war upon the existing treaties of belligerents is one of the unsettled problems of the law.[FN1]

The earlier writers on international law seem to have regarded treaties as indivisible contracts, no part of which

could (unless otherwise agreed) remain in force unless all remained in force, and this view has been incidentally

recognized by the courts.[FN2] The tendency, however, is toward a limitation of the general principle.[FN3]

The outbreak of war between the contracting parties does not necessarily suspend or abrogate treaty

provisions.[FN4] The chief judicial authority for the view that treaties are not ipso facto dissolved by war is an

early United States Supreme Court case,[FN5] which declares that treaties stipulating for permanent rights and

general arrangements, and professing to aim at perpetuity, and to deal with the case of war as well as of peace,

do not cease on the occurrence of war, but are, at most, only suspended while it lasts, and unless they are

waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made, revive upon the return of peace. Under this

view, the question whether stipulations of a treaty are annulled by war depends on their intrinsic

character.[FN6] Treaty provisions compatible with a state of hostilities, unless expressly terminated, will be

enforced, and those incompatible rejected.[FN7] Thus, treaty provisions giving the right to citizens or subjects

of one of the contracting powers to continue to hold and transmit land in the territory of the other survive the

outbreak of war.[FN8] Generally, treaties of a political nature, treaties of alliance, and those which establish a

protectorate or a sphere of influence, fall in the event of war between the parties to such a treaty.[FN9] In

contrast, treaties of boundary or cession, "dispositive" or "transitory" conventions, survive,[FN10] as do treaties

which regulate the conduct of hostilities.[FN11] Treaties which are reasonably practicable to execute after the

outbreak of hostilities must be observed then, as in the past. The belligerents are at liberty to disregard them

only to the extent and for the time required by the necessities of war.[FN12]

It may be noted that the termination of a treaty, whether occasioned by war or otherwise, is uniformly held

not to affect rights previously vested thereunder,[FN13] and that the abrogation of the obligations of a treaty

operates, like the repeal of a law, only upon the future, leaving transactions executed under it to stand

unaffected.[FN14]

[FN1] Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920).

-

[FN2] Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884), in which it was said that a

declaration of war, "when made usually suspends or destroys existing treaties between the nations thus at war."

-

[FN3] Brownell v. City and County of San Francisco, 126 Cal. App. 2d 102, 271 P.2d 974 (1st Dist. 1954);

State v. Reardon, 120 Kan. 614, 245 P. 158, 47 A.L.R. 452 (1926); Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E.

185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920).

-

[FN4] Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 67 S. Ct. 1431, 91 L. Ed. 1633, 170 A.L.R. 953 (1947); Argento v. Horn,

241 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1957).

-

[FN5] Society for Propagation of Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of New Haven, 21 U.S. 464, 5 L. Ed. 662

(1823).

-

[FN6] Karnuth v. U.S., on Petition of Albro, for Cook, 279 U.S. 231, 49 S. Ct. 274, 73 L. Ed. 677 (1929); The

Marianna Flora, 24 U.S. 1, 6 L. Ed. 405 (1825); Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166

(1920).

-

[FN7] Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920).

-

[FN8] Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 67 S. Ct. 1431, 91 L. Ed. 1633, 170 A.L.R. 953 (1947).

-

[FN9] Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920).

-

[FN10] In re Estate of Meyer, 107 Cal. App. 2d 799, 238 P.2d 597 (2d Dist. 1951).

-

[FN11] Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920).

-

[FN12] State v. Reardon, 120 Kan. 614, 245 P. 158, 47 A.L.R. 452 (1926); Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128

N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920).

-

[FN13] Carneal v. Banks, 23 U.S. 181, 6 L. Ed. 297 (1825); Society for Propagation of Gospel in Foreign Parts

v. Town of New Haven, 21 U.S. 464, 5 L. Ed. 662 (1823); Chirac v. Chirac's Lessee, 15 U.S. 259, 4 L. Ed. 234

(1817).

-

[FN14] § 10.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 11

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 12

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

I. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 12. Observance and breach

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 6

Doubtless, the obligation of treaties is to be observed with entire good faith and scrupulous care.[FN1] A

treaty depends for its enforcement on the honor and the interest of the parties to it. If these fail, its infraction

becomes the subject of international reclamation and negotiation, which may lead to war to enforce them.[FN2]

The violation of a treaty obligation by one nation, although justifying the other nation in denouncing the treaty

as no longer obligatory, does not automatically have that effect, but the treaty is only voidable, not void, and the

breach may be waived, with the result that the treaty remains in force.[FN3]

The power to redress an injury done by the violation of a treaty by a subsequent act of Congress is with

Congress and not with the judiciary.[FN4] The questions whether Congress has violated treaty

stipulations,[FN5] whether our government is justified in disregarding its engagements with another

nation,[FN6] whether the complaining nation has just cause of complaint, or our country is justified in its

legislation,[FN7] whether power remains in a foreign state to carry out its treaty obligations,[FN8] or what

remedy shall be invoked against a foreign power by reason of its infraction of a treaty obligation,[FN9] are

political in nature and no concern of the courts. The settlement of rights between individuals under a treaty is

for the courts,[FN10] but with regard to such rights as are purely political, the settlement is for Congress.[FN11]

Accordingly, the duty of protecting imperfect rights of property under treaties rests upon the political, and not

the judicial department of the government, and courts can exercise jurisdiction to determine and protect such

rights only to the extent that Congress has vested them with authority.[FN12]

[FN1] The Marianna Flora, 24 U.S. 1, 6 L. Ed. 405 (1825); Sei Fujii v. State, 38 Cal. 2d 718, 242 P.2d 617

(1952).

-

[FN2] § 34.

-

[FN3] Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274 (1913); Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S.

238, 9 S. Ct. 525, 32 L. Ed. 926 (1889).

-

[FN4] The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227 (1870).

-

[FN5] U.S. v. Ferreira, 54 U.S. 40, 13 How. 40, 14 L. Ed. 40 (1851).

-

[FN6] Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581, 9 S. Ct. 623, 32 L. Ed. 1068 (1889).

-

[FN7] Morris v. U.S., 174 U.S. 196, 19 S. Ct. 649, 43 L. Ed. 946 (1899); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 8

S. Ct. 456, 31 L. Ed. 386 (1888).

-

[FN8] Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. 534 (1902).

-

[FN9] Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 8 S. Ct. 456, 31 L. Ed. 386 (1888); Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S.

580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884).

-

[FN10] § 23.

-

[FN11] U.S. v. O'Donnell, 303 U.S. 501, 58 S. Ct. 708, 82 L. Ed. 980 (1938); Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 20

S. Ct. 1, 44 L. Ed. 49 (1899); Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. 211, 21 L. Ed. 523 (1872); Wilson v. Wall, 73 U.S. 83, 18

L. Ed. 727 (1867).

-

[FN12] U S v. City of Sante Fe, 165 U.S. 675, 17 S. Ct. 472, 41 L. Ed. 874 (1897).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 12

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties II Refs.

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

II. Relation of Treaty to Other Laws and Statutes

Topic Summary Correlation Table

Research References

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 11

Primary Authority

U.S. Const. Art. 6

A.L.R. Library

A.L.R. Digest: Treaties § 5

A.L.R. Index: Treaties

Forms

23A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Treaties §§ 4, 5

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES II REF

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 13

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

II. Relation of Treaty to Other Laws and Statutes

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 13. Generally

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 11

The United States Constitution[FN1] expressly defines the status of treaties of the United States in the

following provision: "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." A treaty, to the extent that it is self-executing, has the force

and effect of a legislative enactment, and to all intents and purposes is the equivalent of an act of

Congress.[FN2] It is binding upon all courts, state and national, as the supreme law of the land.[FN3]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

International Court of Justice's Avena judgment, that United States had violated Vienna Convention by

failing to inform 51 named Mexican nationals, including one convicted in Texas of capital murder and

sentenced to death, of their Vienna Convention rights, was not automatically enforceable domestic law,

immediately and directly binding on state and federal courts pursuant to Supremacy Clause, as would preempt

state limitations on filing of successive habeas petitions. Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190

(2008).

President's Memorandum to United States Attorney General, that United States would discharge its

international obligations under International Court of Justice's (ICJ's) Avena decision, that United States had

violated Vienna Convention by failing to inform 51 named Mexican nationals of their Vienna Convention

rights, by having state courts give effect to decision, did not independently require states to provide

reconsideration and review of named Mexican nationals' habeas claims without regard to state procedural

default rules; relevant treaties did not give President authority to impalement Avena judgment and Congress had

not acquiesced in the exercise of that authority, and, independent of United States' treaty obligations,

Memorandum was not valid exercise of President's foreign affairs authority to resolve claims disputes with

foreign nations. Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190 (2008).

By signing the Convention Concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF), a treaty that regulated

litigation arising from railway transportation in signatory countries, Germany and its instrumentalities did not

impliedly waive sovereign immunity under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for lawsuits arising in

nonsignatory jurisdictions and in countries other than the country in which the injury giving rise to the suits

occurred. Reers v. Deutsche Bahn AG, 320 F. Supp. 2d 140 (S.D. N.Y. 2004).

Requiring Cuban cigar manufacturer to enforce its rights under Articles Seven and Eight of General Inter-

American Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection (IAC), to claim preferential use of its mark

against American manufacturer and to obtain cancellation of interfering mark, through specific provision of

Lanham Act for enforcement of trademark treaties was not violation of United States' treaty obligations, as

those Articles specifically required enforcing party to comply with requirements of domestic legislation.

Emmpresa Cubana del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 2002 WL 31251005 (S.D. N.Y. 2002).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] U.S. Const. Art. 6.

-

[FN2] Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 57 S. Ct. 100, 81 L. Ed. 5 (1936); Fong Yue Ting v.

U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905 (1893) (overruling recognized by, Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815

(9th Cir. 2000)) and (overruling recognized by, U.S. v. Romo-Romo, 246 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001)) and

(overruling recognized by, Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2001)); Chae Chan Ping v. U.S.,

130 U.S. 581, 9 S. Ct. 623, 32 L. Ed. 1068 (1889); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 8 S. Ct. 456, 31 L. Ed.

386 (1888); Cheung v. U.S., 213 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000); Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, 32 Cal. 2d 53, 195 P.2d

1 (1948); Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E.

152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933).

-

[FN3] § 33.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 13

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 14

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

II. Relation of Treaty to Other Laws and Statutes

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 14. Conflict with federal law

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 11

Manifestly, a treaty cannot run counter to the United States Constitution;[FN1] nor are treaties of any

greater legal obligation than acts of Congress.[FN2] Accordingly, while a state law may be void as inconsistent

with a treaty,[FN3] an act of Congress cannot be similarly declared to be invalid.[FN4] When both the treaty

and the act of Congress relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to

give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent,

the one last in date will control the other, provided always that the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-

executing.[FN5] Nevertheless, the purpose by statute to abrogate a treaty or any designated part of a treaty, or

the purpose by treaty to supersede the whole or a part of an act of Congress, must not be lightly assumed, but

must appear clearly and distinctly from the words used in the statute or in the treaty.[FN6] The provisions of an

act of Congress, passed in the exercise of its constitutional authority, if clear and explicit, must be upheld by the

courts, even in contravention of express stipulations in an earlier treaty with a foreign power.[FN7] It is the duty

of the court, if possible, to find an interpretation of the statute which will involve no infraction of the treaty—no

violation of the pledged faith of the government of the United States to the government of another

country.[FN8]

Repeals by implication are never favored, and none will be recognized unless the two expressions—treaty

and statute—are absolutely incompatible.[FN9]

[FN1] § 5.

-

[FN2] § 13.

-

[FN3] § 17.

-

[FN4] Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581, 9 S. Ct. 623, 32 L. Ed. 1068 (1889); Botiller v. Dominguez, 130

U.S. 238, 9 S. Ct. 525, 32 L. Ed. 926 (1889).

-

[FN5] Cook v. U.S., 288 U.S. 102, 53 S. Ct. 305, 77 L. Ed. 641 (1933); U.S. v. M.H. Pulaski Co., 243 U.S. 97,

37 S. Ct. 346, 61 L. Ed. 617 (Cust. App. 1917); Rainey v. U.S., 232 U.S. 310, 34 S. Ct. 429, 58 L. Ed. 617

(1914); Ex parte Webb, 225 U.S. 663, 32 S. Ct. 769, 56 L. Ed. 1248 (1912); Alverez v. U.S., 216 U.S. 167, 30

S. Ct. 361, 54 L. Ed. 432 (1910); U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 22 S. Ct. 629, 46 L. Ed. 878 (1902);

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 19 S. Ct. 722, 43 L. Ed. 1041 (1899); Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149

U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905 (1893) (overruling recognized by, Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir.

2000)) and (overruling recognized by, U.S. v. Romo-Romo, 246 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001)) and (overruling

recognized by, Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2001)); John T. Bill Co. v. U.S., 104 F.2d 67

(C.C.P.A. 1939).

-

[FN6] Pigeon River Imp., Slide & Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 54 S. Ct. 361, 78 L. Ed.

695 (1934); Cook v. U.S., 288 U.S. 102, 53 S. Ct. 305, 77 L. Ed. 641 (1933); U.S. v. Payne, 264 U.S. 446, 44 S.

Ct. 352, 68 L. Ed. 782 (1924); U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 22 S. Ct. 629, 46 L. Ed. 878 (1902).

-

[FN7] U.S. v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 106 S. Ct. 2216, 90 L. Ed. 2d 767 (1986).

-

[FN8] U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 22 S. Ct. 629, 46 L. Ed. 878 (1902); U. S. v. Gue Lim, 176 U.S. 459,

20 S. Ct. 415, 44 L. Ed. 544 (1900); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 8 S. Ct. 456, 31 L. Ed. 386 (1888).

-

[FN9] § 21.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 14

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 15

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

II. Relation of Treaty to Other Laws and Statutes

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 15. Conflict with federal law—With prior statute

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 11

The United States may by a self-executing treaty supersede a prior act of Congress on the same

subject;[FN1] otherwise, the declaration in the Constitution that a treaty concluded in the mode prescribed by

that instrument shall be the supreme law of the land would not have due effect.[FN2] On the other hand, a treaty

provision will not have the effect of suspending the operation of a statute where the treaty is not self-executing,

and legislation has not been enacted to put it into effect.[FN3] Moreover, a later treaty will not be regarded as

repealing an earlier statute by implication unless the two are absolutely incompatible and the statute cannot be

enforced without violating the treaty.[FN4]

[FN1] Cook v. U.S., 288 U.S. 102, 53 S. Ct. 305, 77 L. Ed. 641 (1933); U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 22

S. Ct. 629, 46 L. Ed. 878 (1902); Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264, 18 S. Ct. 340, 42 L. Ed. 740 (1898).

-

[FN2] Ribas y Hijo v. U.S., 194 U.S. 315, 24 S. Ct. 727, 48 L. Ed. 994 (1904); U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S.

213, 22 S. Ct. 629, 46 L. Ed. 878 (1902); Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 16 S. Ct. 1076, 41 L. Ed. 244

(1896) (implied overruling recognized by, State v. Buchanan, 138 Wash. 2d 186, 978 P.2d 1070 (1999)).

-

[FN3] Cameron Septic Tank Co. v. City of Knoxville, 227 U.S. 39, 33 S. Ct. 209, 57 L. Ed. 407 (1913).

-

[FN4] § 14.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 15

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 16

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

II. Relation of Treaty to Other Laws and Statutes

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 16. Conflict with federal law—With subsequent statute

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 11

When treaty stipulations are not self-executing, but require legislation to carry them into effect, such

legislation is as much subject to modification and repeal by Congress as legislation upon any other

subject.[FN1] Or if the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing, they have only the force and effect

of a legislative enactment, and Congress may modify such provisions or supersede them altogether.[FN2]

Where the terms of a treaty and of a subsequent act of Congress come into conflict, the act of Congress will

control.[FN3] An act of Congress is on full parity with an international treaty, and when a statute which is

subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute, to the extent of the conflict, renders the treaty

null.[FN4]

Acts of Congress should not be construed to conflict with international treaty obligations.[FN5] Before the

courts will impute to Congress an intention to violate the provisions of a treaty, that intention must be clearly

and unequivocally manifested,[FN6] and the language of the law which is supposed to constitute the violation

must admit of no other reasonable construction.[FN7] This rule operates with special force where a conflict

would lead to the abrogation of a stipulation in a treaty making a valuable cession to the United States,[FN8] or

where the alleged violation of a treaty is found in an act of Congress declared in its title to be an act to execute

certain stipulations in that treaty.[FN9] Ordinarily, treaty obligations may be overridden by subsequent

inconsistent statutes; treaties and statutes enjoy equal status and thus inconsistencies between the two must be

resolved in the favor of the lex posterior.[FN10] However, if the statute is clear and unambiguous, the prior

treaty must yield to the extent of any repugnancy between them.[FN11]

[FN1] Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884).

-

[FN2] Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 19 S. Ct. 722, 43 L. Ed. 1041 (1899); Fong Yue Ting v.

U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905 (1893) (overruling recognized by, Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815

(9th Cir. 2000)) and (overruling recognized by, U.S. v. Romo-Romo, 246 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001)) and

(overruling recognized by, Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2001)); Horner v. U.S., 143 U.S.

570, 12 S. Ct. 522, 36 L. Ed. 266 (1892); Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581, 9 S. Ct. 623, 32 L. Ed. 1068

(1889); Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238, 9 S. Ct. 525, 32 L. Ed. 926 (1889).

-

[FN3] Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41, 71 S. Ct. 553, 95 L. Ed. 729 (1951); Pigeon River Imp., Slide &

Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 54 S. Ct. 361, 78 L. Ed. 695 (1934); U.S. v. Payne, 264 U.S.

446, 44 S. Ct. 352, 68 L. Ed. 782 (1924); Rainey v. U.S., 232 U.S. 310, 34 S. Ct. 429, 58 L. Ed. 617 (1914);

Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 16 S. Ct. 1076, 41 L. Ed. 244 (1896) (implied overruling recognized by,

State v. Buchanan, 138 Wash. 2d 186, 978 P.2d 1070 (1999)); Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct.

1016, 37 L. Ed. 905 (1893) (overruling recognized by, Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000)) and

(overruling recognized by, U.S. v. Romo-Romo, 246 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001)) and (overruling recognized by,

Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2001)); Horner v. U.S., 143 U.S. 570, 12 S. Ct. 522, 36 L. Ed.

266 (1892); Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581, 9 S. Ct. 623, 32 L. Ed. 1068 (1889); Botiller v. Dominguez,

130 U.S. 238, 9 S. Ct. 525, 32 L. Ed. 926 (1889).

-

[FN4] Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 118 S. Ct. 1352, 140 L. Ed. 2d 529 (1998); Bell v. Office of Personnel

Management, 169 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

-

[FN5] Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1996).

-

[FN6] Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 918, 121

S. Ct. 277, 148 L. Ed. 2d 201 (2000); Blanco v. U.S., 775 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1985).

-

[FN7] Frost v. Wenie, 157 U.S. 46, 15 S. Ct. 532, 39 L. Ed. 614 (1895); U.S. v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whisky,

108 U.S. 491, 2 S. Ct. 906, 27 L. Ed. 803 (1883).

-

[FN8] U.S. v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whisky, 108 U.S. 491, 2 S. Ct. 906, 27 L. Ed. 803 (1883).

-

[FN9] Chew Heong v. U.S., 112 U.S. 536, 5 S. Ct. 255, 28 L. Ed. 770 (1884).

-

[FN10] Vorhees v. Fischer & Krecke, 697 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1983); Egle v. Egle, 715 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1983),

writ denied, 469 U.S. 1032, 105 S. Ct. 549, 83 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1984) and mandamus denied, 469 U.S. 1206, 105

S. Ct. 1234, 84 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1985); Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929

(D.C. Cir. 1988).

-

[FN11] Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905 (1893) (overruling recognized by,

Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000)) and (overruling recognized by, U.S. v. Romo-Romo, 246 F.3d 1272

(9th Cir. 2001)) and (overruling recognized by, Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2001)); The

Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227 (1870).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 16

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 17

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

II. Relation of Treaty to Other Laws and Statutes

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 17. Conflict with state law

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 11

Forms

Complaint, petition, or declaration—To enjoin enforcement of municipal ordinance violating treaty—By resident

alien. 23A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Treaties § 4.

Complaint, petition, or declaration—For refund of personal property tax—Assessment in violation of treaty. 23A

Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Treaties § 5.

It is the necessary result of the explicit declarations of the Federal Constitution[FN1] that where there is a

conflict between a treaty and the provisions of a state constitution or of a state statute, whether enacted prior or

subsequently to the making of the treaty, the treaty will control.[FN2] Treaties are as binding within the

territorial limits of the states as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.[FN3] A treaty

entered into by the United States is binding on Puerto Rico and cannot be overridden by the Puerto Rican

legislature.[FN4] Treaties are binding not only upon the government, but upon every citizen.[FN5] The

provisions of the treaty supersede and render nugatory all conflicting provisions in the laws or constitution of

any state.[FN6] Also, the power of a state to refuse enforcement of rights based on a foreign law which runs

counter to its public policy must give way before a superior federal policy evidenced by a treaty or international

compact or agreement.[FN7]

A treaty, however, does not automatically supersede local laws which are inconsistent with it unless the

treaty provisions are self-executing.[FN8] The language of a treaty, wherever reasonably possible, will be

construed so as not to override state laws or to impair rights arising under them,[FN9] and a treaty will be

carefully construed so as not to derogate from the authority and jurisdiction of a state unless such a result is

clearly necessary to effectuate the national policy.[FN10] Thus the effect of a treaty is not to nullify a

conflicting statute, but rather to suspend it in its application to a citizen of the country with which the treaty is

made.[FN11] The treaty which will suspend or override the statute of a state must be a treaty between the

United States and the government of the particular country of which the alien claiming to be relieved of the

disability imposed by the state law is a citizen or subject. A treaty with some other country, of which such alien

is not a citizen or subject, cannot have the effect of removing the disability complained of.[FN12] The

provisions of the common law of the state, as well as its statutes, may be suspended during the existence of a

treaty inconsistent therewith.[FN13]

A treaty is supreme only when it is made in pursuance of that authority which has been conferred on the

treaty-making department, and in relation to those subjects the jurisdiction over which has been exclusively

entrusted to Congress.[FN14] If it should transcend these limits, like an act of Congress which transcends the

constitutional authority of that body, it could not supersede a state law which enforces or exercises any power of

the state not granted away by the Constitution. To hold otherwise would, if carried to its ultimate consequences,

sanction the supremacy of a treaty entirely exempting foreigners from taxation by the respective states, or even

undertaking to cede away a part or the whole of the acknowledged territory of one of the states to a foreign

nation.[FN15]

It is well settled that a treaty provision will not operate to supersede or suspend a state statute if the treaty is

not self-executing and if no implementing legislation has been enacted.[FN16]

When there is no conflict between a treaty and state law, the state law remains unaffected.[FN17]

[FN1] § 5.

-

[FN2] Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 88 S. Ct. 664, 19 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1968); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186,

82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962); Bacardi Corporation of America v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 150, 61 S. Ct.

219, 85 L. Ed. 98 (1940); U.S. v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 57 S. Ct. 758, 81 L. Ed. 1134 (1937); Hamilton v.

Regents of the University of Calif., 293 U.S. 245, 55 S. Ct. 197, 79 L. Ed. 343 (1934); Santovincenzo v. Egan,

284 U.S. 30, 52 S. Ct. 81, 76 L. Ed. 151 (1931); Todok v. Union State Bank of Harvard, Neb., 281 U.S. 449, 50

S. Ct. 363, 74 L. Ed. 956 (1930); Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47, 49 S. Ct. 223, 73 L. Ed. 607 (1929); Asakura

v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 44 S. Ct. 515, 68 L. Ed. 1041 (1924), opinion amended, 44 S. Ct. 634 (U.S.

1924); Boehringer-Mannheim Diagnostics, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 737 F.2d 456 (5th Cir.

1984); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Director, Michigan Dept. of Natural

Resources, 141 F.3d 635, 1998 FED App. 109P (6th Cir. 1998); In re Estate of Meyer, 107 Cal. App. 2d 799,

238 P.2d 597 (2d Dist. 1951); Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281

Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933); Wyers v. Arnold, 347 Mo. 413, 147 S.W.2d 644, 134 A.L.R.

876 (1941).

-

[FN3] Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S. Ct. 656, 32 L. Ed. 766 (1887).

-

[FN4] Bacardi Corporation of America v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 150, 61 S. Ct. 219, 85 L. Ed. 98 (1940).

-

[FN5] Kennett v. Chambers, 55 U.S. 38, 14 How. 38, 14 L. Ed. 316 (1852).

-

[FN6] Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 67 S. Ct. 1431, 91 L. Ed. 1633, 170 A.L.R. 953 (1947); State v. Arthur, 74

Idaho 251, 261 P.2d 135 (1953); Hanafin v. McCarthy, 95 N.H. 36, 57 A.2d 148 (1948); Techt v. Hughes, 229

N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920); Trott v. State, 41 N.D. 614, 171 N.W. 827, 4 A.L.R. 1372

(1919).

-

[FN7] U.S. v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 62 S. Ct. 552, 86 L. Ed. 796 (1942). A state cannot refuse to give foreign

nationals their treaty rights because of fear that valid international agreements may possibly not work

completely to the satisfaction of state authorities. Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 81 S. Ct. 922, 6 L. Ed. 2d

218 (1961).

-

[FN8] Sei Fujii v. State, 38 Cal. 2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952).

-

[FN9] Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. U.S., 304 U.S. 126, 58 S. Ct. 785, 82 L. Ed. 1224 (1938); Todok v.

Union State Bank of Harvard, Neb., 281 U.S. 449, 50 S. Ct. 363, 74 L. Ed. 956 (1930); Wyers v. Arnold, 347

Mo. 413, 147 S.W.2d 644, 134 A.L.R. 876 (1941).

-

[FN10] U.S. v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 62 S. Ct. 552, 86 L. Ed. 796 (1942).

-

[FN11] Ahrens v. Ahrens, 144 Iowa 486, 123 N.W. 164 (1909); In re Stixrud's Estate, 58 Wash. 339, 109 P. 343

(1910).

-

[FN12] Wunderle v. Wunderle, 144 Ill. 40, 33 N.E. 195 (1893).

-

[FN13] De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890).

-

[FN14] § 6.

-

[FN15] People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 232, 1850 WL 640 (1850) (overruled by, Lin Sing v.

Washburn, 20 Cal. 534, 1862 WL 587 (1862)).

-

[FN16] Cameron Septic Tank Co. v. City of Knoxville, 227 U.S. 39, 33 S. Ct. 209, 57 L. Ed. 407 (1913); Sei

Fujii v. State, 38 Cal. 2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952); Milliken v. State, 131 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1961).

-

[FN17] Hamilton v. Regents of the University of Calif., 293 U.S. 245, 55 S. Ct. 197, 79 L. Ed. 343 (1934);

Todok v. Union State Bank of Harvard, Neb., 281 U.S. 449, 50 S. Ct. 363, 74 L. Ed. 956 (1930); Liberato v.

Royer, 270 U.S. 535, 46 S. Ct. 373, 70 L. Ed. 719 (1926); In re Servas' Estate, 169 Cal. 240, 146 P. 651 (1915).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 17

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 18

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

II. Relation of Treaty to Other Laws and Statutes

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 18. Conflict with state law—Presumptions and inferences

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 8

The presumption is against any intention on the part of the Federal government to invade by treaty the

province of state law in matters inherently local,[FN1] or to deprive any state of the right to exercise any of its

sovereign powers.[FN2] Treaties with foreign countries must be held to have been made with reference to the

rightful exercise of the police power by the different states, in aid of the protection and preservation of the

public health within their respective borders.[FN3] It may be inferred from the decisions of the United States

Supreme Court that a treaty will, if possible, be given a restricted construction where a broader construction

would infringe upon a special power of the state over the subject matter.[FN4]

[FN1] In re Servas' Estate, 169 Cal. 240, 146 P. 651 (1915); In re Lis' Estate, 120 Minn. 122, 139 N.W. 300

(1912).

-

[FN2] Puget Sound Agr. Co. v. Pierce County, 1 Wash. Terr. 159, 1861 WL 333 (1861), dismissed, 73 U.S.

246, 18 L. Ed. 739 (1867).

-

[FN3] Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Board of Health, 51 La. Ann. 645, 25 So. 591

(1899), aff'd, 186 U.S. 380, 22 S. Ct. 811, 46 L. Ed. 1209 (1902).

-

[FN4] Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175, 36 S. Ct. 78, 60 L. Ed. 206 (1915); Patsone v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 232

U.S. 138, 34 S. Ct. 281, 58 L. Ed. 539 (1914).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 18

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties III Refs.

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table

Research References

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7, 8

A.L.R. Library

A.L.R. Digest: Treaties §§ 2, 2.5

A.L.R. Index: Treaties

Forms

23A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Treaties §§ 7, 8

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES III REF

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 19

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 19. Generally

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

Certain technical rules of interpretation have been adopted to explain the meaning of international compacts

in cases of doubt.[FN1] Since a treaty is by nature a compact between sovereignties,[FN2] and when executed,

is a part of the municipal law of the land,[FN3] a treaty is to be construed on principles similar to those applied

to other written contracts and statutes,[FN4] and the cognate rules of international law and of the legislation of

the government may be considered.[FN5] As a contract between independent nations, a treaty must, if possible,

be construed to give full force and effect to its parts,[FN6] which bind the contracting powers.[FN7] An

exception to the rule of treaty interpretation is Indian treaties, which are not to be read as ordinary contracts

agreed upon by parties dealing at arm's length with equal bargaining positions.[FN8]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

The interpretation of a treaty, like the interpretation of a statute, begins with its text. Abbott v. Abbott, 130

S. Ct. 1983 (2010).

The Executive Branch's interpretation of a treaty is entitled to great weight. Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct.

1983 (2010).

Interstate compacts, like treaties, are presumed to be the subject of careful consideration before they are

entered into, and are drawn by persons competent to express their meaning, and to choose apt words in which to

embody the purposes of the high contracting parties. New Jersey v. Delaware, 128 S. Ct. 1410, 170 L. Ed. 2d

315 (U.S. 2008).

Interpretation of treaty, like interpretation of statute, begins with its text. Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346,

170 L. Ed. 2d 190 (U.S. 2008).

Because treaty ratified by United States is agreement among sovereign powers, Supreme Court also

considers as aids to its interpretation treaty's negotiation and drafting history as well as postratification

understanding of signatory nations. Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190 (U.S. 2008).

Grave risk of harm standard of Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as

implemented by ICARA, did not violate equal protection component of Due Process Clause, on ground that

less-demanding best interests of child standard should apply, since best interests standard applied in custody

matters, but Hague Convention did not grant jurisdiction to determine merits of underlying custody dispute.

Kufner v. Kufner, 519 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008).

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not apply impermissible heightened specific intent standard, in

place of "specific intent" required by provision of Convention Against Torture requiring that torture be

"intentionally inflicted," in rejecting alien's contention that he would be subjected to torture upon his return to

Haiti because of his assistance in prosecution of Haitian drug dealers, where totality of BIA's discussion

indicated that it understood intent required under applicable regulation. Thomas v. Attorney General of U.S.,

210 Fed. Appx. 195 (3d Cir. 2006).

Mother's appeal of order under Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

requiring her to return child to England, the child's country of habitual residence where divorce and original

custody order were entered, after she removed child to United States for vacation and failed to return, was

rendered moot by new order of English court discharging all prior custody orders, granting residential custody

to father and forbidding mother from removing child from father's care; English court had jurisdiction over

custody determination, and once English court determined that mother could not remove child from England,

federal court could not provide any effectual relief to mother. Navani v. Shahani, 496 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir.

2007).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] U.S. v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425 (1886); Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3 Dall.

199, 1 L. Ed. 568 (1796); Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass.

303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933); Maiorano v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 216 Pa. 402, 65 A. 1077

(1907), aff'd, 213 U.S. 268, 29 S. Ct. 424, 53 L. Ed. 792 (1909).

-

[FN2] § 2.

-

[FN3] § 4.

-

[FN4] Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 41 S. Ct. 158, 65 L. Ed. 344 (1921); U.S. v. Reynes, 50 U.S. 127, 9 How.

127, 13 L. Ed. 74 (1850); Kahn Lucas Lancaster, Inc. v. Lark Intern. Ltd., 186 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 1999); Johnson

v. Olson, 92 Kan. 819, 142 P. 256 (1914).

-

[FN5] Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U.S. 30, 52 S. Ct. 81, 76 L. Ed. 151 (1931); Choctaw Nation v. U.S., 22 Ct.

Cl. 476, 119 U.S. 1, 7 S. Ct. 75, 30 L. Ed. 306 (1886); Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545, 53 A.L.R.

1279 (1927), cert. granted, 277 U.S. 580, 48 S. Ct. 527, 72 L. Ed. 997 (1928) and aff'd, 278 U.S. 123, 49 S. Ct.

47, 73 L. Ed. 214 (1928); In re Anderson's Estate, 166 Iowa 617, 147 N.W. 1098 (1914), aff'd, 245 U.S. 170, 38

S. Ct. 109, 62 L. Ed. 225 (1917); Trott v. State, 41 N.D. 614, 171 N.W. 827, 4 A.L.R. 1372 (1919).

-

[FN6] Mangattu v. M/V Ibn Hayyan, 35 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 1994).

-

[FN7] Humane Soc. of the U.S. v. Glickman, 217 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

-

[FN8] McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S. Ct. 1257, 36 L. Ed. 2d 129

(1973).

- As to the rules applicable to the construction and interpretation of Indian treaties, see § 31.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 19

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 20

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 20. Power and function of courts

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

While courts interpret treaties for themselves, the meaning given them by the departments of government

particularly charged with their negotiation and enforcement are accorded great weight.[FN1] Acts of Congress

normally do not have extraterritorial application unless such an intent is clearly manifested; that presumption

has special force when a court is construing treaty and statutory provisions that may involve foreign and

military affairs for which the President has unique responsibility.[FN2] It may be observed, however, that the

courts are not required to give a strained construction to the language of a treaty, or to place an unreasonable

interpretation upon it, for the purpose of securing privileges for foreigners which are denied citizens.[FN3]

An interpretation which would render a treaty null and inefficient cannot be admitted;rather, a treaty ought

to be interpreted in such a manner that it may have its effect, and not prove vain and nugatory.[FN4] If the

courts possess a power to declare treaties void, they should never exercise it, except in a very clear case.[FN5]

[FN1] Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 81 S. Ct. 922, 6 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1961); Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d

153 (2d Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Page, 232 F.3d 536, 2000 FED App. 388P (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct.

1389, 149 L. Ed. 2d 312 (U.S. 2001) and cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1965, 149 L. Ed. 2d 759 (U.S. 2001) and cert.

denied, 121 S. Ct. 1965, 149 L. Ed. 2d 759 (U.S. 2001) and cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2202, 149 L. Ed. 2d 1032

(U.S. 2001); U.S. v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 991, 121 S. Ct.

481, 148 L. Ed. 2d 455 (2000); U. S. v. Conners, 606 F.2d 269 (10th Cir. 1979).

-

[FN2] Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 113 S. Ct. 2549, 125 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1993).

-

[FN3] Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152,

87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933).

-

[FN4] Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 11 S. Ct. 897, 35 L. Ed. 581 (1891); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258,

10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890).

-

[FN5] Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3 Dall. 199, 1 L. Ed. 568 (1796).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 20

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 21

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 21. Power and function of courts—Omissions, insertions, and implications

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 8

Under no circumstances may a court alter, amend, or add to any treaty,[FN1] by inserting any clause,

whether small or great, important or trivial, for to do so would be a usurpation of power by the court, and not an

exercise of judicial functions; to do so would be to make, and not to construe, a treaty.[FN2] A court in

construing an article of a treaty cannot reject as surplusage words inserted therein which have a plain meaning

and materially affect the construction.[FN3] Courts are bound to give effect to the stipulations of a treaty in the

manner and to the extent which the parties have declared, and not otherwise,[FN4] and they cannot dispense

with any conditions or requirements or take away any part of any stipulation upon any notion of equity or

convenience or substantial justice, or by any application of the doctrine of performance cy pres.[FN5]

Treaties are the subject of careful consideration before they are entered into, and are drawn by persons

competent to express their meaning and to choose apt words in which to embody the purposes of the high

contracting parties.[FN6] Diplomatic men read the public treaties made by other nations and cannot be

supposed either to omit or insert an article common in public treaties without being aware of the effect of such

omission or insertion. Neither the omission nor the insertion is to be ascribed to inattention. Also, if an article

alleged to be omitted is not necessarily implied in one which is inserted, the corresponding subject remains

under the previously existing rule.[FN7] Anything necessarily implied is as though inserted.[FN8] However,

repeals by implication are never favored, and a later treaty or statute will not be regarded as repealing an earlier

enactment by implication unless the two are absolutely incompatible and the latter cannot be enforced without

antagonizing the earlier.[FN9]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Language of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations referring to the right of an arrested foreign

national to consular notice and access does not create a fundamental right comparable to the constitutional

privilege against self–incrimination. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. Bell v. Com., 264 Va. 172, 563 S.E.2d 695

(2002).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] Maritime Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 983 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1993).

-

[FN2] Leavenworth, L. & G.R. Co. v. U.S., 92 U.S. 733, 23 L. Ed. 634 (1875); The Amiable Isabella, 19 U.S.

1, 5 L. Ed. 191 (1821); Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana Airlines, 214 F.3d 301 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.

Ct. 2549, 150 L. Ed. 2d 716 (U.S. 2001); Kass v. Reno, 83 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 1996).

-

[FN3] Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 7 L. Ed. 415 (1829) (overruled on other grounds in part by, U.S. v.

Percheman, 32 U.S. 51, 8 L. Ed. 604 (1833)) and (overruling recognized by, Beggerly v. U.S., 114 F.3d 484

(5th Cir. 1997)) and (overruling recognized by, White v. Paulsen, 997 F. Supp. 1380 (E.D. Wash. 1998)) and

(overruling recognized by, Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (C.D. Cal. 1999)).

-

[FN4] International Bank for Reconstruction and Development v. District of Columbia, 171 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir.

1999).

-

[FN5] The Amiable Isabella, 19 U.S. 1, 5 L. Ed. 191 (1821).

-

[FN6] Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317, 32 S. Ct. 207, 56 L. Ed. 453 (1912).

-

[FN7] Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317, 32 S. Ct. 207, 56 L. Ed. 453 (1912); Society for Propagation of

Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of New Haven, 21 U.S. 464, 5 L. Ed. 662 (1823); The Nereide, 13 U.S. 388, 3

L. Ed. 769 (1815).

-

[FN8] Adriance v. Lagrave, 59 N.Y. 110, 1874 WL 11362 (1874).

-

[FN9] Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309, 27 S. Ct. 539, 51 L. Ed. 816 (1907); U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S.

213, 22 S. Ct. 629, 46 L. Ed. 878 (1902); John T. Bill Co. v. U.S., 104 F.2d 67 (C.C.P.A. 1939).

- As to the termination of treaties, generally, see § 10.

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 21

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 22

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 22. Liberal or strict construction

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 8

Liberality is one of the foremost of the rules of treaty interpretation.[FN1] Indeed, treaties are construed

more liberally than private agreements.[FN2] Accordingly, where a treaty admits of two constructions, one

restrictive of rights that may be claimed under it and the other favorable to them, the latter is to be

preferred.[FN3] To the fullest extent possible, treaty language is to be interpreted so as to avoid

inconsistency.[FN4] Obscurities and uncertainties of obligatory clauses are to be interpreted in favor of the

party who obligates himself, however, and the obligation must be restricted to the sense which lessens the

obligation, for he who obligates himself does it as little as he can, and if the other party is not satisfied, he

should require a clearer and fuller explanation of the meaning of the clause.[FN5]

Liberality in the construction of a treaty is not restricted by any necessity of avoiding possible conflict with

state legislation.[FN6] However, it is not an invariable rule of construction that treaties are to be liberally

construed. Like other contracts, they are to be read in the light of the conditions and circumstances existing at

the time they were entered into, with a view to effecting the objects and purposes of the states thereby

contracting.[FN7] It is not for the court to make the construction of a treaty broader than the apparent intent and

purport of its language.[FN8] Accordingly, the general rule that treaties should be liberally construed so as to

carry out the apparent intention of the parties to secure equality and reciprocity between them does not justify a

state court in judicially legislating as against the right of the state and its taxing power, and in adding words to a

treaty so as to make it applicable to the estates of citizens of the United States in the United States, where, by its

terms, it is only applicable to the estates of aliens or to the estates of citizens of the United States who reside in

a foreign country.[FN9] The inclination toward a liberal construction will yield to the presumption that the

treaty was not intended to infringe upon the Federal Constitution, or to invade the province of state law in

matters inherently local, or to restrict the exercise of a sovereign power.[FN10]

[FN1] In re Wyman, 191 Mass. 276, 77 N.E. 379 (1906); Pagano v. Cerri, 93 Ohio St. 345, 112 N.E. 1037

(1916).

-

[FN2] Choctaw Nation of Indians v. U.S., 318 U.S. 423, 63 S. Ct. 672, 87 L. Ed. 877 (1943); U.S. v. Pink, 315

U.S. 203, 62 S. Ct. 552, 86 L. Ed. 796 (1942); Bacardi Corporation of America v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 150, 61

S. Ct. 219, 85 L. Ed. 98 (1940); Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 57 S. Ct. 100, 81 L. Ed. 5

(1936); Todok v. Union State Bank of Harvard, Neb., 281 U.S. 449, 50 S. Ct. 363, 74 L. Ed. 956 (1930);

Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47, 49 S. Ct. 223, 73 L. Ed. 607 (1929); Jordan v. K. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123, 49 S.

Ct. 47, 73 L. Ed. 214 (1928); Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281

Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933); Wyers v. Arnold, 347 Mo. 413, 147 S.W.2d 644, 134 A.L.R.

876 (1941).

-

[FN3] U.S. v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 109 S. Ct. 1183, 103 L. Ed. 2d 388 (1989); Bacardi Corporation of America

v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 150, 61 S. Ct. 219, 85 L. Ed. 98 (1940); Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5,

57 S. Ct. 100, 81 L. Ed. 5 (1936); Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 54 S. Ct. 191, 78 L. Ed. 315 (1933);

Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47, 49 S. Ct. 223, 73 L. Ed. 607 (1929); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332,

44 S. Ct. 515, 68 L. Ed. 1041 (1924), opinion amended, 44 S. Ct. 634 (U.S. 1924); Board of County Com'rs of

Dade County, Fla. v. Aerolineas Peruanasa, S. A., 307 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1962); Universal Adjustment Corp. v.

Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933); In re

Zalewski's Estate, 292 N.Y. 332, 55 N.E.2d 184, 157 A.L.R. 87 (1944).

-

[FN4] Fujitsu Ltd. v. Federal Exp. Corp., 247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 2001 WL 873297 (U.S.

2001).

-

[FN5] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 54 S. Ct. 191, 78 L. Ed. 315 (1933); Jordan v. K. Tashiro, 278

U.S. 123, 49 S. Ct. 47, 73 L. Ed. 214 (1928); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 44 S. Ct. 515, 68 L. Ed.

1041 (1924), opinion amended, 44 S. Ct. 634 (U.S. 1924); U.S. v. Payne, 264 U.S. 446, 44 S. Ct. 352, 68 L. Ed.

782 (1924); Disconto Gesellschaft v. Umbreit, 208 U.S. 570, 28 S. Ct. 337, 52 L. Ed. 625 (1908); Universal

Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407

(1933).

-

[FN6] Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47, 49 S. Ct. 223, 73 L. Ed. 607 (1929); Universal Adjustment Corp. v.

Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933).

- As to an endeavor to sustain state legislation, see § 17.

-

[FN7] § 30.

-

[FN8] The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U.S. 283, 5 L. Ed. 454 (1822).

-

[FN9] Moody v. Hagen, 36 N.D. 471, 162 N.W. 704 (1917), aff'd, 245 U.S. 633, 38 S. Ct. 133, 62 L. Ed. 522

(1917).

-

[FN10] Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3 Dall. 199, 1 L. Ed. 568 (1796).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 22

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 23

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 23. Practical construction

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 8

A.L.R. Library

Construction and Application of Political Question Doctrine by State Courts, 9 A.L.R.6th 177

Law Reviews and Other Periodicals

Barkow, More Supreme Than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial

Supremacy, 102 Colum. L.R. 237 (2002)

Boyd, Are Human Rights Political Questions? 53 Rutgers L.R. 277 (2001)

Graber, The Secret Life of the Political Question Doctrine, 21 Const. Comment. 485 (2004)

Karalis, Foreign Policy and Separation of Powers Jurisprudence: Executive Orders Regarding Export

Administration Act Extension in Times of Lapse as a Political Question, 12 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 109

(2004)

Lupu, Risen, Retroactive Application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Landgraf Analysis and the Political

Question Doctrine, 8 UCLA J. Int'l L. & Foreign Aff. 239 (2003)

Pushaw, Baker v. Carr: A Commemorative Symposium: Judicial Review and the Political Question Doctrine:

Reviving the Federalist "Rebuttable Presumption" Analysis, 80 N.C. L.R. 1165 (2002)

Seidman, The Secret Life of the Political Question Doctrine, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 441 (2004)

Tushnet, Baker v. Carr: A Commemorative Symposium: Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The

Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine, 80 N.C. L.R. 1203 (2002)

Where a provision in a treaty is ambiguous, the court in construing it may appropriately look to the practical

construction which has been placed upon it.[FN1] The practice of a treaty's signatories counts as evidence of the

treaty's proper interpretation, since the signatories' conduct generally evinces their understanding of the

agreement they signed.[FN2] It was held earlier that the construction given to a treaty in practice, especially

when such practical construction is of long standing, will be adopted by the courts, and further, that, the

political department having interpreted the compact, such interpretation is deemed to be binding on the

judiciary.[FN3] While it may seem that the same thought has been repeated,[FN4] doubt has been cast upon the

universal applicability of such rule,[FN5] inasmuch as it has been said that the question of the construction of

treaties is peculiarly judicial in its nature,[FN6] although the courts, when called upon to act, should be careful

to see that the construction placed upon a treaty and consistently adhered to by the executive department of the

Federal government, charged with the supervision of foreign relations, while not conclusive on the courts, is

given much weight.[FN7] The rule as to contemporary construction never applies where titles or personal rights

would be impaired.[FN8] Nevertheless, the courts will not undertake to review the construction put by the

political department of the government upon a treaty, where only political questions are involved.[FN9]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

In interpreting any treaty, the opinions of sister signatories are entitled to considerable weight. Abbott v.

Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010).

When a treaty and statute set out no particularized standards or criteria on which to judge a prison transfer

request, the agency reviewing the application has completely unfettered discretion. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4102. Toor v.

Holder, 717 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2010).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] Pigeon River Imp., Slide & Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 54 S. Ct. 361, 78 L. Ed.

695 (1934); U. S. v. Decker, 600 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1979).

-

[FN2] U.S. v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 109 S. Ct. 1183, 103 L. Ed. 2d 388 (1989); Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified

Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 221 F.3d 634 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1079, 148 L. Ed. 2d 956

(U.S. 2001).

-

[FN3] Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47, 49 S. Ct. 223, 73 L. Ed. 607 (1929); U.S. v. Lynde, 78 U.S. 632, 20 L.

Ed. 230 (1870); U.S. v. Reynes, 50 U.S. 127, 9 How. 127, 13 L. Ed. 74 (1850); Lattimer's Lessee v. Poteet, 39

U.S. 4, 10 L. Ed. 328 (1840).

- As to state and federal legislative acts as practical construction, see Pigeon River Imp., Slide & Boom Co. v.

Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 54 S. Ct. 361, 78 L. Ed. 695 (1934).

-

[FN4] Pigeon River Imp., Slide & Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 54 S. Ct. 361, 78 L. Ed.

695 (1934); Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E.

152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933).

-

[FN5] Pigeon River Imp., Slide & Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 54 S. Ct. 361, 78 L. Ed.

695 (1934).

-

[FN6] Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 20 S. Ct. 1, 44 L. Ed. 49 (1899); Wilson v. Wall, 73 U.S. 83, 18 L. Ed. 727

(1867); U.S. v. Arredondo, 31 U.S. 691, 8 L. Ed. 547 (1832); Hamilton v. Erie R. Co., 219 N.Y. 343, 114 N.E.

399 (1916), error dismissed, 248 U.S. 369, 39 S. Ct. 95, 63 L. Ed. 307 (1919).

-

[FN7] El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155, 119 S. Ct. 662, 142 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1999);

Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 54 S. Ct. 191, 78 L. Ed. 315 (1933); Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 41

S. Ct. 158, 65 L. Ed. 344 (1921); Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274 (1913); De

Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 21 S. Ct. 743, 45 L. Ed. 1041 (1901); State of Minn. by Alexander v. Block, 660

F.2d 1240 (8th Cir. 1981); DuPree v. U. S., 559 F.2d 1151 (9th Cir. 1977).

-

[FN8] Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274 (1913); Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 20

S. Ct. 1, 44 L. Ed. 49 (1899); Kinkead v. U.S., 150 U.S. 483, 14 S. Ct. 172, 37 L. Ed. 1152, 1 Alaska Fed. 340

(1893); Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. 211, 21 L. Ed. 523 (1872); Wilson v. Wall, 73 U.S. 83, 18 L. Ed. 727 (1867).

-

[FN9] Ex parte Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 12 S. Ct. 453, 36 L. Ed. 232, 1 Alaska Fed. 244 (1892); U.S. v. Reynes,

50 U.S. 127, 9 How. 127, 13 L. Ed. 74 (1850).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 23

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 24

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 24. Intent

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

In the interpretation of treaties the fundamental rule by which the courts are guided is the ascertainment of

intent.[FN1] If the language of the treaty clearly expresses the meaning and intention, no other means of

interpretation can be employed;[FN2] otherwise, the intention of the parties is to be collected from the letter and

spirit of the instrument and may be illustrated and enforced by considerations deducible from the situations of

the parties and the reasonableness, justice, and nature of the thing for which provision has been made.[FN3]

Although the preamble to a treaty is not part thereof, it may be considered in construing the intent of the

party.[FN4] A sensible and reasonable effect must be given unless the wording of the treaty forbids, and the

cognate rules of international law and of legislation of the government may be considered.[FN5] If the language

of the treaty is wholly indefinite, or the natural objects called for are uncertain or contradictory, there is no

power but that which formed the treaty which can remedy such defects.[FN6]

[FN1] Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 57 S. Ct. 100, 81 L. Ed. 5 (1936); Todok v. Union State

Bank of Harvard, Neb., 281 U.S. 449, 50 S. Ct. 363, 74 L. Ed. 956 (1930); Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47, 49

S. Ct. 223, 73 L. Ed. 607 (1929); Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40, 23 S. Ct. 781, 47 L. Ed. 948 (1903); Ross v.

McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 11 S. Ct. 897, 35 L. Ed. 581 (1891); MacNamara v. Korean Air Lines, 863 F.2d 1135

(3d Cir. 1988); Board of County Com'rs of Dade County, Fla. v. Aerolineas Peruanasa, S. A., 307 F.2d 802 (5th

Cir. 1962); U. S. v. Kember, 685 F.2d 451, 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1583 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Universal Adjustment

Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933);

Lazarou v. Moraros, 101 N.H. 383, 143 A.2d 669 (1958).

-

[FN2] Maximov v. U. S., 373 U.S. 49, 83 S. Ct. 1054, 10 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1963); U.S. v. State of Tex., 162 U.S.

1, 16 S. Ct. 725, 40 L. Ed. 867 (1896); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890);

U.S. v. Duarte-Acero, 208 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2000); Ex parte McCabe, 46 F. 363 (W.D. Tex. 1891);

Hamilton v. Erie R. Co., 219 N.Y. 343, 114 N.E. 399 (1916), error dismissed, 248 U.S. 369, 39 S. Ct. 95, 63 L.

Ed. 307 (1919); Maiorano v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 216 Pa. 402, 65 A. 1077 (1907), aff'd, 213 U.S. 268, 29 S.

Ct. 424, 53 L. Ed. 792 (1909).

-

[FN3] Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3 Dall. 199, 1 L. Ed. 568 (1796).

-

[FN4] Lazarou v. Moraros, 101 N.H. 383, 143 A.2d 669 (1958).

-

[FN5] Ross v. Pan American Airways, 299 N.Y. 88, 85 N.E.2d 880, 13 A.L.R.2d 319 (1949).

-

[FN6] Lattimer's Lessee v. Poteet, 39 U.S. 4, 10 L. Ed. 328 (1840).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 24

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 25

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 25. Rule of uberrima fides

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

In the solemn treaties between nations, it never can be presumed that either state intends to provide the

means of perpetrating or protecting frauds, but all the provisions are to be construed as intended to be applied to

bona fide transactions.[FN1] Treaties should be so construed as to uphold the sanctity of the public faith.[FN2]

A convention in a treaty which is operative upon both of the signatory powers, and is intended for their mutual

protection, should be interpreted in a spirit of uberrima fides.[FN3]

[FN1] The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518, 10 L. Ed. 826 (1841).

-

[FN2] Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 41 S. Ct. 158, 65 L. Ed. 344 (1921); Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504,

16 S. Ct. 1076, 41 L. Ed. 244 (1896) (implied overruling recognized by, State v. Buchanan, 138 Wash. 2d 186,

978 P.2d 1070 (1999)).

-

[FN3] Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309, 27 S. Ct. 539, 51 L. Ed. 816 (1907); Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U.S.

424, 22 S. Ct. 195, 46 L. Ed. 264 (1902).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 25

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 26

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 26. Rule of pari materia

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

The intention of the parties to a treaty is to be gathered from the whole instrument, as it stood when the

ratifications were exchanged.[FN1] All parts of the treaty are to receive a reasonable construction with a view to

giving a fair operation to the whole,[FN2] and all provisions relevant to the inquiry are to be considered.[FN3]

The words used are to be given their natural and ordinary signification.[FN4] The whole instrument containing

the stipulations is to be taken together, and all articles in pari materia should be considered as parts of the same

stipulation.[FN5]

[FN1] U.S. v. State of Tex., 162 U.S. 1, 16 S. Ct. 725, 40 L. Ed. 867 (1896); Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. 635, 16

How. 635, 14 L. Ed. 1090 (1853); Eck v. United Arab Airlines, Inc., 15 N.Y.2d 53, 255 N.Y.S.2d 249, 203

N.E.2d 640, 6 A.L.R.3d 1260 (1964).

-

[FN2] Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 41 S. Ct. 158, 65 L. Ed. 344 (1921); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258,

10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890); Johnson v. Olson, 92 Kan. 819, 142 P. 256 (1914); Universal Adjustment

Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933).

-

[FN3] Wyers v. Arnold, 347 Mo. 413, 147 S.W.2d 644, 134 A.L.R. 876 (1941); Hamilton v. Erie R. Co., 219

N.Y. 343, 114 N.E. 399 (1916), error dismissed, 248 U.S. 369, 39 S. Ct. 95, 63 L. Ed. 307 (1919).

-

[FN4] Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 16 S. Ct. 1076, 41 L. Ed. 244 (1896) (implied overruling recognized

by, State v. Buchanan, 138 Wash. 2d 186, 978 P.2d 1070 (1999)); Hamilton v. Erie R. Co., 219 N.Y. 343, 114

N.E. 399 (1916), error dismissed, 248 U.S. 369, 39 S. Ct. 95, 63 L. Ed. 307 (1919).

-

[FN5] Ex parte McCabe, 46 F. 363 (W.D. Tex. 1891).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 26

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 27

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 27. Rule of ejusdem generis

The rule of ejusdem generis is at most one of construction, to be resorted to as an aid in the construction of a

treaty only when words or phrases are of doubtful meaning.[FN1]

[FN1] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 54 S. Ct. 191, 78 L. Ed. 315 (1933).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 27

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 28

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 28. Extraneous documents

Since the courts endeavor to give meaning to all parts of a treaty,[FN1] a map to which the contracting

parties referred is to be given the same effect as if it had been expressly made a part of the treaty.[FN2] Where

one of the parties to a treaty annexes, at the time of its ratification, a written declaration explaining ambiguous

language in the instrument or adding a new and distinct stipulation, and the treaty is afterward ratified by the

other party with the declaration attached to it, and the ratifications duly exchanged, the declaration thus annexed

is a part of the treaty and as binding and obligatory as if it were inserted in the body of the instrument.[FN3] In

the interpretation of a treaty, a letter by the Secretary of State sending the treaty to the President preparatory to

transmission to the Senate may be considered.[FN4]

[FN1] § 19.

-

[FN2] U.S. v. State of Tex., 162 U.S. 1, 16 S. Ct. 725, 40 L. Ed. 867 (1896).

-

[FN3] Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. 635, 16 How. 635, 14 L. Ed. 1090 (1853).

-

[FN4] Ross v. Pan American Airways, 299 N.Y. 88, 85 N.E.2d 880, 13 A.L.R.2d 319 (1949).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 28

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 29

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 29. Several languages

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7, 8

Inasmuch as a treaty must be construed as a whole, where it is executed in two languages, both versions are

originals, and both must be deemed as intended by the contracting powers to be identical in meaning.

Accordingly, a construction must be sought which will bring the terms of the two languages into harmony one

with the other.[FN1] However, in construing a treaty done in counterparts, one in the language of each

contracting party, the courts can make little use of the local technical definitions of words.[FN2]

[FN1] U.S. v. Percheman, 32 U.S. 51, 8 L. Ed. 604 (1833); U.S. v. Arredondo, 31 U.S. 691, 8 L. Ed. 547

(1832); Kahn Lucas Lancaster, Inc. v. Lark Intern. Ltd., 186 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Olson, 92 Kan.

819, 142 P. 256 (1914).

-

[FN2] In re Zalewski's Estate, 292 N.Y. 332, 55 N.E.2d 184, 157 A.L.R. 87 (1944).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 29

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 30

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 30. History and purpose

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

Treaties are to be read in the light of the conditions and circumstances existing at the time they were entered

into, with a view to effecting the object and purposes of the contracting states.[FN1] When interpreting a treaty,

the United States Supreme Court begins with the text of the treaty and the context in which the written words

are used, but other general rules of construction may be brought to bear on difficult or ambiguous passages;

treaties are construed more liberally than private agreements,[FN2] and to ascertain their meaning the Supreme

Court may look behind the written words to the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical

construction adopted by the parties.[FN3] The reason of the treaty, that is to say, the motive which led to the

making of it, and the object in contemplation at the time, are the most certain clues to lead to the discovery of its

true meaning.[FN4] Hence, the history of a treaty is to be considered,[FN5] as well as the negotiations and

diplomatic correspondence of the parties, as aids to interpretation.[FN6]

[FN1] Choctaw Nation of Indians v. U.S., 318 U.S. 423, 63 S. Ct. 672, 87 L. Ed. 877 (1943); U.S. v. Pink, 315

U.S. 203, 62 S. Ct. 552, 86 L. Ed. 796 (1942); Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U.S. 30, 52 S. Ct. 81, 76 L. Ed. 151

(1931); Todok v. Union State Bank of Harvard, Neb., 281 U.S. 449, 50 S. Ct. 363, 74 L. Ed. 956 (1930);

Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 41 S. Ct. 158, 65 L. Ed. 344 (1921); Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317, 32 S.

Ct. 207, 56 L. Ed. 453 (1912); Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281

Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933); Bondi v. Mackay, 87 Vt. 271, 89 A. 228 (1913).

-

[FN2] § 22.

-

[FN3] Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 111 S. Ct. 1489, 113 L. Ed. 2d 569 (1991); For Court of

Appeals, Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634 (5th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. State of Wash., 157

F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1060, 119 S. Ct. 1376, 143 L. Ed. 2d 535 (1999) and cert.

denied, 526 U.S. 1060, 119 S. Ct. 1377, 143 L. Ed. 2d 535 (1999) and cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1060, 119 S. Ct.

1377, 143 L. Ed. 2d 535 (1999) and cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1060, 119 S. Ct. 1377, 143 L. Ed. 2d 535 (1999).

-

[FN4] Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U.S. 30, 52 S. Ct. 81, 76 L. Ed. 151 (1931); Cameron Septic Tank Co. v.

City of Knoxville, 227 U.S. 39, 33 S. Ct. 209, 57 L. Ed. 407 (1913); B. Altman & Co. v. U.S., 224 U.S. 583, 32

S. Ct. 593, 56 L. Ed. 894 (1912); Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317, 32 S. Ct. 207, 56 L. Ed. 453 (1912);

Franklin Sugar Refining Co v. U S, 202 U.S. 580, 26 S. Ct. 720, 50 L. Ed. 1153 (1906); U.S. v. Choctaw

Nation, 179 U.S. 494, 21 S. Ct. 149, 45 L. Ed. 291 (1900); Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 16 S. Ct. 1076,

41 L. Ed. 244 (1896) (implied overruling recognized by, State v. Buchanan, 138 Wash. 2d 186, 978 P.2d 1070

(1999)); Leighton v. U.S., 161 U.S. 291, 16 S. Ct. 495, 40 L. Ed. 703 (1896); Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453,

11 S. Ct. 897, 35 L. Ed. 581 (1891); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890);

Ex parte Spies, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S. Ct. 21, 31 L. Ed. 80 (1887); Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v.

State Board of Health, 51 La. Ann. 645, 25 So. 591 (1899), aff'd, 186 U.S. 380, 22 S. Ct. 811, 46 L. Ed. 1209

(1902); Eck v. United Arab Airlines, Inc., 15 N.Y.2d 53, 255 N.Y.S.2d 249, 203 N.E.2d 640, 6 A.L.R.3d 1260

(1964).

-

[FN5] Cook v. U.S., 288 U.S. 102, 53 S. Ct. 305, 77 L. Ed. 641 (1933); U.S. v. Li, 206 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 956, 121 S. Ct. 378, 148 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2000) and cert. denied, 531 U.S. 956, 121 S. Ct.

379, 148 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2000) and cert. denied, 531 U.S. 956, 121 S. Ct. 379, 148 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2000);

McCarthy v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 1995); Kass v. Reno, 83 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir.

1996); Marquez-Ramos v. Reno, 69 F.3d 477 (10th Cir. 1995); Bishop v. Reno, 210 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 897, 121 S. Ct. 229, 148 L. Ed. 2d 163 (2000); Eck v. United Arab Airlines, Inc., 15

N.Y.2d 53, 255 N.Y.S.2d 249, 203 N.E.2d 640, 6 A.L.R.3d 1260 (1964).

-

[FN6] State of Arizona v. State of California, 292 U.S. 341, 54 S. Ct. 735, 78 L. Ed. 1298 (1934); Factor v.

Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 54 S. Ct. 191, 78 L. Ed. 315 (1933); Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47, 49 S. Ct.

223, 73 L. Ed. 607 (1929); Jordan v. K. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123, 49 S. Ct. 47, 73 L. Ed. 214 (1928); Universal

Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407

(1933).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 30

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 31

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 31. Meaning of words

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

Forms

Complaint in Federal Court—Arising under treaty—To quiet title to American Indian tribal lands. 23 Am. Jur.

Pleading and Practice Forms, Treaties § 7.

Petition in Court of Claims by American Indian to recover damages for wrongful death under rights provided by

treaty. 23 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Treaties § 8.

In ascertaining the meaning of a treaty, the words used are to be given their natural and ordinary

signification, and a sensible and reasonable effect must be given unless the words forbid.[FN1] If the words

express the meaning of the contracting nations plainly, distinctly, and perfectly, there ought to be no other

means of interpretation,[FN2] but if the words are obscure, ambiguous, or imperfect, recourse must be had to

other means of interpretation.[FN3] Compacts between governments or nations, like those between individuals,

should be interpreted according to the natural, fair, and received acceptation of the terms in which they are

expressed.[FN4] It is a court's responsibility to give the specific words of a treaty a meaning consistent with the

shared expectations of the contracting parties.[FN5] By reason of the fact that they are international in

character, their words are to be taken as understood in the public law of nations, and not in any artificial or

special sense impressed by local law, unless the restricted sense is clearly intended.[FN6] However, it is not an

unusual judicial problem to have to seek the meaning of a law expressed in words not doubtful of themselves,

but made so by circumstances or the objects to which they come to be applied.[FN7] To some terms and

expressions a literal meaning will be given, and to others a larger and more extended one.[FN8] The inquiry in

all such cases is as to what was intended in the treaty by the contracting powers.[FN9]

Where a long-continuing judicial construction of language used in treaties has given it a character which the

treaty-making agencies have not seen fit to alter, and such construction is entirely consistent with the plain

language of the treaty, a court should not change such construction even though as an original matter another

construction may have much to commend it.[FN10]

A treaty with Indians must be construed not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned

lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians.[FN11] In interpreting

Indian treaties, the general rule is that doubtful expressions are to be resolved in favor of the weak and the

defenseless people who are the wards of the nation, dependent upon its protection and good faith.[FN12]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

For purposes of Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims, "acquiescence" to torture requires only that

government officials remain willfully blind to torturous conduct and breach their legal responsibility to prevent

it. Silva-Rengifo v. Atty. Gen. of U.S., 473 F.3d 58 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended, (Mar. 6, 2007).

Regardless of whether the term "torture," as used in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and

Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), was intended to include specific intent

requirement, and regardless of whether the shared understanding of President and the United States Senate, as

part of ratification process, that term required a specific intent to inflict severe pain and suffering was consistent

with understanding of that term in international community, this shared understanding, as codified in the

Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA), governed interpretation of term in domestic context.

Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005).

Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) interpretation of "specific intent" requirement incorporated in

definition of "torture," as used in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) as enacted into domestic law by the Foreign Affairs Reform and

Restructuring Act (FARRA), to impose same limitations as are ordinarily imposed by "specific intent"

requirement under American criminal law, was not unreasonable, though the CAT is not concerned with

criminal prosecution; "specific intent" standard is term of art well-known in American jurisprudence, and the

BIA could rely on this jurisprudence to conclude that, in order for act to constitute "torture" under the CAT as

implemented by the FARRA, there must be showing that actor had both intent to commit the act and intent to

achieve the consequences of that act, i.e., infliction of severe pain and suffering. Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d

123 (3d Cir. 2005).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634 (5th Cir. 1994); Xerox Corp. v. U.S., 41 F.3d

647 (Fed. Cir. 1994), nonacq., 1997-18 I.R.B. 41997-1 C.B. 1 and nonacq., 1997-18 I.R.B. 4(May 5, 1997) and

nonacq., 1998-1 I.R.B. 51998-1 I.R.B. 5 and nonacq., 1998-1 I.R.B. 5(Jan. 5, 1998); Hamilton v. Erie R. Co.,

219 N.Y. 343, 114 N.E. 399 (1916), error dismissed, 248 U.S. 369, 39 S. Ct. 95, 63 L. Ed. 307 (1919).

-

[FN2] § 24.

-

[FN3] Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3 Dall. 199, 1 L. Ed. 568 (1796).

-

[FN4] De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890); U.S. v. D'Auterive, 51 U.S. 609,

10 How. 609, 13 L. Ed. 560 (1850).

-

[FN5] El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155, 119 S. Ct. 662, 142 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1999).

-

[FN6] Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U.S. 30, 52 S. Ct. 81, 76 L. Ed. 151 (1931); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S.

258, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 (1890); The Pizarro, 15 U.S. 227, 4 L. Ed. 226 (1817); Tashiro v. Jordan, 201

Cal. 236, 256 P. 545, 53 A.L.R. 1279 (1927), cert. granted, 277 U.S. 580, 48 S. Ct. 527, 72 L. Ed. 997 (1928)

and aff'd, 278 U.S. 123, 49 S. Ct. 47, 73 L. Ed. 214 (1928); Wyers v. Arnold, 347 Mo. 413, 147 S.W.2d 644,

134 A.L.R. 876 (1941).

-

[FN7] U.S. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 202 U.S. 563, 26 S. Ct. 717, 50 L. Ed. 1149 (1906); In re

Zalewski's Estate, 292 N.Y. 332, 55 N.E.2d 184, 157 A.L.R. 87 (1944).

-

[FN8] Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453, 11 S. Ct. 897, 35 L. Ed. 581 (1891).

-

[FN9] § 24.

-

[FN10] Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 67 S. Ct. 1431, 91 L. Ed. 1633, 170 A.L.R. 953 (1947).

-

[FN11] Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 20 S. Ct. 1, 44 L. Ed. 49 (1899).

-

[FN12] McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S. Ct. 1257, 36 L. Ed. 2d 129

(1973).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 31

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 32

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

III. Construction

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 32. Meaning of words—Particular terms

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7, 8

The courts have been called upon to give the meaning intended by particular terms employed in

treaties.[FN1] Thus, the word "laws" has been held to include custom and usage.[FN2] The word "property" has

been held to comprehend every species of title, inchoate or complete,[FN3] legal or equitable,[FN4] embracing

those rights which lie in contract, executory as well as executed.[FN5] The expression "property of private

individuals" has been held to refer to ordinary private property of present ascertainable value, and capable of

being transferred from man to man.[FN6] The words "goods and effects" include real as well as personal

property.[FN7] The term "grant" has been construed to include any concession, warrant, order, or permission to

survey, possess, or settle, whether evidenced by writing or parol, or presumed from possession.[FN8] The term

"subjects" has been construed to mean the same as "citizens" or "inhabitants."[FN9] The expression "commerce

and trade" has been held to connote occupations and recognized forms of business enterprise which do not

necessarily involve trading in merchandise.[FN10] Among other words that have been construed are

"heirs,"[FN11] "territories,"[FN12] "citizens," "native citizens,"[FN13] and "respective."[FN14] A "most-

favored-nation" clause in a treaty is one in which each party agrees to afford the other all the rights,

prerogatives, immunities, and privileges which are or may thereafter be granted to the most favored

nation.[FN15] "Most-favored-nation" clauses may be inapplicable in situations where exceptions are made for

valuable consideration.[FN16]

[FN1] U.S. v. Clarke, 33 U.S. 436, 8 L. Ed. 1001 (1834).

-

[FN2] Strother v. Lucas, 37 U.S. 410, 9 L. Ed. 1137 (1838).

-

[FN3] Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U.S. 179, 5 S. Ct. 407, 28 L. Ed. 908 (1885).

-

[FN4] Morton v. Nebraska, 88 U.S. 660, 22 L. Ed. 639 (1874); Strother v. Lucas, 37 U.S. 410, 9 L. Ed. 1137

(1838).

-

[FN5] Smith v. U.S., 35 U.S. 326, 9 L. Ed. 442 (1836).

-

[FN6] Alverez v. U.S., 216 U.S. 167, 30 S. Ct. 361, 54 L. Ed. 432 (1910).

-

[FN7] In re Stixrud's Estate, 58 Wash. 339, 109 P. 343 (1910).

- See Todok v. Union State Bank of Harvard, Neb., 281 U.S. 449, 50 S. Ct. 363, 74 L. Ed. 956 (1930),

construing French "fonds et biens."

-

[FN8] Strother v. Lucas, 37 U.S. 410, 9 L. Ed. 1137 (1838).

-

[FN9] The Pizarro, 15 U.S. 227, 4 L. Ed. 226 (1817).

-

[FN10] Jordan v. K. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123, 49 S. Ct. 47, 73 L. Ed. 214 (1928); Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326, 44

S. Ct. 115, 68 L. Ed. 323 (1923); Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 44 S. Ct. 15, 68 L. Ed. 255 (1923).

-

[FN11] In re Stixrud's Estate, 58 Wash. 339, 109 P. 343 (1910).

-

[FN12] In re Heikich Terui, 187 Cal. 20, 200 P. 954, 17 A.L.R. 630 (1921).

-

[FN13] Jordan v. K. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123, 49 S. Ct. 47, 73 L. Ed. 214 (1928).

-

[FN14] In re Stixrud's Estate, 58 Wash. 339, 109 P. 343 (1910).

-

[FN15] Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 81 S. Ct. 922, 6 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1961); Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284

U.S. 30, 52 S. Ct. 81, 76 L. Ed. 151 (1931); Mentula v. State Land Bd., 244 Or. 229, 417 P.2d 581 (1966).

-

[FN16] Kelly v. Hedden, 124 U.S. 196, 8 S. Ct. 459, 31 L. Ed. 389 (1888); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S.

190, 8 S. Ct. 456, 31 L. Ed. 386 (1888); Bartram v. Robertson, 122 U.S. 116, 7 S. Ct. 1115, 30 L. Ed. 1118

(1887); Board of County Com'rs of Dade County, Fla. v. Aerolineas Peruanasa, S. A., 307 F.2d 802 (5th Cir.

1962).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 32

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties IV Refs.

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

IV. Enforcement

Topic Summary Correlation Table

Research References

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 13, 14

A.L.R. Library

A.L.R. Digest: Treaties § 2

A.L.R. Index: Treaties

Model Codes and Restatements

Restatement Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States §§ 703 comment (a), 907 comment (a)

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES IV REF

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 33

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

IV. Enforcement

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 33. Generally

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

A.L.R. Library

Recoverability of Reparations from Corporations for Nazi-Related Conduct, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 279

Trial Strategy

Proof of a Claim Involving Stolen Art or Antiquities, 77 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 259

Law Reviews and Other Periodicals

Denning, Ramsey, American Insurance Association v. Garamendi and Executive Preemption in Foreign Affairs, 46

Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 825 (2004)

Gupta, Casenote: A Portrait of Justice Deferred: Retroactive Application of the FSIA and its Implications for

Holocaust Era Art Restitution. Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 124 S. Ct. 2240 (2004), 30 U. Dayton L. Rev.

373 (2005)

Vzquez, Note and Comment, The Right of War Crime Victim to Compensation before National Court, Altmann v.

Austria and the Retroactivity of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 3 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 207 (2005)

Shirinova, Challenges to Establishing Jurisdiction Over Holocaust Era Claims in Federal Court, 34 Golden Gate U.

L. Rev. 159 (2004)

Wernicke, The "Retroactive" Application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Recovering Nazi Looted Art,

72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1103 (2004)

Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II, 37 Vand. J.

Transnat'l L. 333 (2004)

Gattini, To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals' Claims for War

Damages?, 1 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 348 (2003)

Murphy, Implementation of German Holocaust Claims Agreement, 97 Am. J. Int'l L. 692 (2003)

Bazyler and Fitzgerald, Trading With the Enemy: Holocaust Restitution, the United States Government, and

American Industry, 28 Brook. J. Int'l L. 683 (2003)

Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 11 (2002)

Bayzler, www.swissbanks.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks,

25 Fordham Int'l L.J. S64 (2002)

Bayzler, Litigating the Holocaust, Nuremberg in America: Litigating the Holocaust in American Courts, 34 U.

Rich. L. Rev. 1 (2000)

While in force treaties are the supreme law of the land,[FN1] for like statutes they are so declared by the

United States Constitution.[FN2] They are to be executed in the utmost good faith, with a view to making

effective the purposes of the contracting parties.[FN3] By express command of the Constitution, it is the duty of

the judges of every state to uphold and enforce treaties of the United States,[FN4] anything in the constitution

or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.[FN5] All courts, state and national, must take judicial

notice of and be governed by a treaty of the United States.[FN6] A self-executing treaty is binding upon the

federal and state courts.[FN7] The mandates of a treaty must be obeyed, even though affecting litigation already

in court and compelling the reversal of a judgment below.[FN8]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Fact that International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment may not be automatically enforceable in domestic

courts does not mean the particular underlying treaty is not. Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d

190 (U.S. 2008).

United States Supreme Court lacked supervisory authority to impose upon state courts remedy of

suppression of evidence, for state police officers' violations of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

(VCCR), by failing to inform arrested foreign nationals of their right to consular notification and

communication; no such authority could be inferred from Court's supervisory authority over federal courts, and

thus authority for suppression remedy had to come from VCCR itself or not at all. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon,

126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557 (U.S. 2006).

When treaty provides for particular judicial remedy, courts must apply remedy as requirement of federal

law, and there is no issue of intruding on constitutional prerogatives of states or other federal branches; when

treaty does not provide particular remedy, either expressly or implicitly, it is not for federal courts to impose

one on states through lawmaking of their own. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557

(U.S. 2006).

Remedy of suppression of evidence was not implicitly authorized for state police officers' failure to inform

arrested foreign nationals of their right to consular notification and communication, in violation of Vienna

Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR); VCCR's provision that implementing laws and regulations must

enable "full effect" to be given to purposes for which right in question was intended did not authorize

suppression, since "full effect" provision was balanced with mandate to exercise right "in conformity with laws

and regulations of receiving state," and constitutional violations historically triggering suppression remedy were

absent. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557 (U.S. 2006).

Absent clear and express statement to contrary, procedural rules of forum state govern implementation of

treaty in that state. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557 (U.S. 2006).

Argument raised for first time by convicted foreign national in state habeas corpus petition, that arresting

officers had violated Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) by failing to inform him of his right to

consular notification and communication, was subject to same state procedural-default rules as any other

federal-law claim; International Court of Justice's (ICJ) conclusion in unrelated cases, that application of

procedural-default rules to claims of such violations failed to give "full effect" to purposes of VCCR, was not

binding on federal courts. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557 (U.S. 2006).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 44 S. Ct. 515, 68 L. Ed. 1041 (1924), opinion amended, 44 S.

Ct. 634 (U.S. 1924); State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A.L.R. 984

(1920); Maiorano v. Baltimore & O R Co, 213 U.S. 268, 29 S. Ct. 424, 53 L. Ed. 792 (1909); De Lima v.

Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 21 S. Ct. 743, 45 L. Ed. 1041 (1901); Bartram v. Robertson, 122 U.S. 116, 7 S. Ct. 1115,

30 L. Ed. 1118 (1887); Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884); Chew Heong v.

U.S., 112 U.S. 536, 5 S. Ct. 255, 28 L. Ed. 770 (1884); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227

(1870); Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152,

87 A.L.R. 1407 (1933); Dominguez v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. 92, 234 S.W. 79, 18 A.L.R. 503 (1921).

-

[FN2] § 13.

-

[FN3] Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 41 S. Ct. 158, 65 L. Ed. 344 (1921).

-

[FN4] U.S. v. State of Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 46 S. Ct. 298, 70 L. Ed. 539 (1926); Dominguez v. State, 90

Tex. Crim. 92, 234 S.W. 79, 18 A.L.R. 503 (1921).

-

[FN5] Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt, 101 Minn. 197, 112 N.W. 395 (1907); Butschkowski v. Brecks,

94 Neb. 532, 143 N.W. 923 (1913).

-

[FN6] U.S. v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425 (1886).

-

[FN7] Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt, 101 Minn. 197, 112 N.W. 395 (1907); In re Zalewski's Estate,

292 N.Y. 332, 55 N.E.2d 184, 157 A.L.R. 87 (1944).

-

[FN8] The Peggy, 5 U.S. 103, 2 L. Ed. 49 (1801).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 33

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 34

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

IV. Enforcement

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 34. As international compact

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

A.L.R. Library

Construction and Application of Political Question Doctrine by State Courts, 9 A.L.R.6th 177

Recoverability of Reparations from Corporations for Nazi-Related Conduct, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 279

Trial Strategy

Proof of a Claim Involving Stolen Art or Antiquities, 77 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 259

Law Reviews and Other Periodicals

Denning, Ramsey, American Insurance Association v. Garamendi and Executive Preemption in Foreign Affairs, 46

Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 825 (2004)

Gupta, Casenote: A Portrait of Justice Deferred: Retroactive Application of the FSIA and its Implications for

Holocaust Era Art Restitution. Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 124 S. Ct. 2240 (2004), 30 U. Dayton L. Rev.

373 (2005)

Vzquez, Note and Comment, The Right of War Crime Victim to Compensation before National Court, Altmann v.

Austria and the Retroactivity of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 3 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 207 (2005)

Shirinova, Challenges to Establishing Jurisdiction Over Holocaust Era Claims in Federal Court, 34 Golden Gate U.

L. Rev. 159 (2004)

Wernicke, The "Retroactive" Application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Recovering Nazi Looted Art,

72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1103 (2004)

Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II, 37 Vand. J.

Transnat'l L. 333 (2004)

Gattini, To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals' Claims for War

Damages?, 1 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 348 (2003)

Murphy, Implementation of German Holocaust Claims Agreement, 97 Am. J. Int'l L. 692 (2003)

Bazyler and Fitzgerald, Trading With the Enemy: Holocaust Restitution, the United States Government, and

American Industry, 28 Brook. J. Int'l L. 683 (2003)

Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 11 (2002)

Bayzler, www.swissbanks.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks,

25 Fordham Int'l L.J. S64 (2002)

Bayzler, Litigating the Holocaust, Nuremberg in America: Litigating the Holocaust in American Courts, 34 U.

Rich. L. Rev. 1 (2000)

Barkow, More Supreme Than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial

Supremacy, 102 Colum. L.R. 237 (2002)

Boyd, Are Human Rights Political Questions? 53 Rutgers L.R. 277 (2001)

Graber, The Secret Life of the Political Question Doctrine, 21 Const. Comment. 485 (2004)

Karalis, Foreign Policy and Separation of Powers Jurisprudence: Executive Orders Regarding Export

Administration Act Extension in Times of Lapse as a Political Question, 12 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 109

(2004)

Lupu, Risen, Retroactive Application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Landgraf Analysis and the Political

Question Doctrine, 8 UCLA J. Int'l L. & Foreign Aff. 239 (2003)

Pushaw, Baker v. Carr: A Commemorative Symposium: Judicial Review and the Political Question Doctrine:

Reviving the Federalist "Rebuttable Presumption" Analysis, 80 N.C. L.R. 1165 (2002)

Seidman, The Secret Life of the Political Question Doctrine, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 441 (2004)

Tushnet, Baker v. Carr: A Commemorative Symposium: Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The

Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine, 80 N.C. L.R. 1203 (2002)

A treaty depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the honor and the interest of the governments

which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international reclamation and

negotiation, which may lead to war to enforce its provisions.[FN1] It is obvious that with all this the judicial

courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.[FN2] Aside from the duty imposed by the Constitution to

respect treaty stipulations when they become the subject of judicial proceedings, the court cannot be unmindful

of the fact that the honor of the government and people of the United States is involved in every inquiry whether

rights secured by such stipulations shall be recognized and protected. Also, it would be wanting in proper

respect for the intelligence and patriotism of a co-ordinate department of the government were it to doubt, for a

moment, that these considerations were present in the minds of its members when the legislation in question

was enacted.[FN3] The courts have no authority, upon any information or concessions of any individual, to

consider or declare a treaty broken, but their judgment must be granted upon the solemn declaration of Congress

alone.[FN4] Even the existence of a treaty recognized by the political department of the government as still in

force cannot be questioned by the courts.[FN5] However, in the absence of a denunciation of a treaty by the

political department, the courts will treat it as still in effect.[FN6]

The courts will not undertake to inquire and decide whether the person who ratified the treaty in behalf of a

foreign nation has the power, by its constitution and laws, to make the engagements into which he

entered.[FN7] Courts can no more go behind a treaty which has been executed and ratified by the proper

authorities of the government, for the purpose of annulling its effects and operations, than they can behind an

act of Congress.[FN8] However, it has been held that, absent encroachments upon the provisions of the

Constitution or of a federal statute enacted subsequently to the effective date of a treaty, the wisdom of the

provisions of an administrative agreement authorized by the treaty is exclusively for the determination of the

executive and legislative branches.[FN9] The court has no power to set itself up as the instrumentality for

enforcing the provisions of a treaty with a foreign nation, which the government of the United States, as a

sovereign power, chooses to disregard.[FN10] Until a treaty has been denounced, it is the duty of both the

government and the courts to sanction the performance of the obligations reciprocal to the rights which the

treaty declares and the government asserts even though the other party to it holds a different view of its

meaning.[FN11]

Whether a state is in a position to perform its treaty obligations is essentially a political question, and the

provisions of a treaty which have survived the outbreak of war between the contracting parties may not be held

by the courts to have been abrogated upon the cessation of one of them to exist as an international community,

where the political departments of the government have not so ruled.[FN12]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Statutes:

The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, 48 USCA §§ 1921 et seq., involves approval

of specified compacts as well as compacts of free association with the federated states of Micronesia and the

Republic of the Marshall Islands.

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. 534 (1902); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S.

190, 8 S. Ct. 456, 31 L. Ed. 386 (1888); Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884).

- Generally, as to the observance and breach of treaties, see § 12.

-

[FN2] Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S. Ct. 945, 57 L. Ed. 1274 (1913); Ex parte Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 12

S. Ct. 453, 36 L. Ed. 232, 1 Alaska Fed. 244 (1892); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 8 S. Ct. 456, 31 L.

Ed. 386 (1888); Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884).

- As to powers and duties of courts as to foreign relations and treaties, see 16A Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law

§§ 55, 56.

-

[FN3] Chew Heong v. U.S., 112 U.S. 536, 5 S. Ct. 255, 28 L. Ed. 770 (1884).

-

[FN4] Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238, 9 S. Ct. 525, 32 L. Ed. 926 (1889); Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3

Dall. 199, 1 L. Ed. 568 (1796).

- At least where the international obligation allegedly violated is either a treaty or a rule of customary

international law, as opposed to a peremptory norm or jus cogens, the court has no authority to remedy the

alleged violation when the alleged violation takes the form of a law enacted by Congress and signed by the

President. Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

-

[FN5] Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. 534 (1902).

-

[FN6] Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920).

-

[FN7] Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. 534 (1902); Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. 635, 16

How. 635, 14 L. Ed. 1090 (1853).

-

[FN8] U.S. v. State of Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 46 S. Ct. 298, 70 L. Ed. 539 (1926); U.S. v. "Old Settlers" 148

U.S. 427, 13 S. Ct. 650, 37 L. Ed. 509 (1893); Fellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. 366, 19 How. 366, 15 L. Ed. 684

(1856).

-

[FN9] Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 77 S. Ct. 1409, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1544 (1957).

-

[FN10] Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238, 9 S. Ct. 525, 32 L. Ed. 926 (1889).

-

[FN11] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 54 S. Ct. 191, 78 L. Ed. 315 (1933).

-

[FN12] Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 67 S. Ct. 1431, 91 L. Ed. 1633, 170 A.L.R. 953 (1947).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 34

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties § 35

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

IV. Enforcement

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 35. As municipal law

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Treaties 7

A treaty may contain provisions which confer certain rights on the citizens or subjects of one of the nations

residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law,[FN1] and which are

capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country.[FN2] Whether or not treaty

violations can provide the basis for particular claims or defenses depends upon the particular treaty and claim

involved.[FN3] A treaty may create standing if it indicates an intention to establish direct, affirmative, and

judicially enforceable rights.[FN4] However, individuals have no standing to challenge violations of

international treaties in the absence of a protest by the sovereigns involved.[FN5]

A treaty, then, is a law of the land as an act of Congress is, whenever its provisions prescribe a rule by

which the rights of the private citizen or subject may be determined; and when such rights are of a nature to be

enforced in a court of justice, the court resorts to the treaty for a rule of decision for the case before it as it

would refer to a statute.[FN6] An executed treaty, being the equivalent of an act of Congress,[FN7] is binding

on all courts, state and national. All are bound to recognize it judicially and to respect and enforce such private

rights as may be founded upon its stipulations.[FN8]

The right of the courts to recognize a treaty as the supreme law of the land is not limited to cases in which

they are called upon to protect individual rights created by the treaty; they may refuse to authorize any

proceeding which would result in violation of the treaty.[FN9] No private rights, contractual or otherwise, can

be lawfully acquired in violation of the provisions of a treaty.[FN10] On the other hand, a treaty subsequently

made by the United States cannot divest a right already vested.[FN11] Treaties made by the United States are

law of the land, but if not implemented by appropriate legislation they do not provide a basis for private lawsuit

unless they are intended to be self-executing.[FN12] A United States treaty may contain provisions which

confer rights upon the citizens of one of the contracting parties that are capable of enforcement as are any other

private rights under the law but, in general, this is not so.[FN13] As a general rule, international treaties, as

agreements among sovereign nations, do not create individual rights that are enforceable by an

individual.[FN14]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

United Nations (UN) Charter does not contemplate automatic enforceability of International Court of Justice

(ICJ) decisions in domestic courts;its enforcement provision provides sole remedy for noncompliance, referral

to United Nations Security Council by aggrieved state. Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190

(U.S. 2008).

Assignee of rights and obligations of two insurance companies covered by reinsurance treaties was

equivalent of opposing party in companies' Texas action to enforce treaties against member of reinsurance pool,

and therefore compulsory counterclaim rule barred separate action in which member sought declaration that it

was not liable under treaties and repayment of sums mistakenly paid under treaties to companies. Transamerica

Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Aviation Office of America, Inc., 292 F.3d 384, 52 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1042 (3d Cir.

2002).

Congressmen lacked standing to bring action against President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of

Defense, challenging President's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty)

without the approval of Congress; congressmen's injuries were generalized injuries that affected all members of

Congress in the same broad and undifferentiated manner were not sufficiently "personal" or "particularized,"

legislative countermeasures were available to obtain relief, and the congressmen had not been authorized,

implicitly or explicitly, to bring lawsuit on behalf of the House, a committee of the House, or Congress as a

whole. Kucinich v. Bush, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

[FN1] § 4.

-

[FN2] Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884); U.S. v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206

F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 991, 121 S. Ct. 481, 148 L. Ed. 2d 455 (2000); Dominguez v.

State, 90 Tex. Crim. 92, 234 S.W. 79, 18 A.L.R. 503 (1921); Bondi v. Mackay, 87 Vt. 271, 89 A. 228 (1913).

-

[FN3] U.S. v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 991, 121 S. Ct. 481,

148 L. Ed. 2d 455 (2000).

-

[FN4] Garza v. Lappin, 253 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2543, 150 L. Ed. 2d 708 (U.S.

2001); U.S. v. Mann, 829 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1987).

- Restatement Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §§ 703 comment (a), 907 comment (a).

-

[FN5] U.S. v. Jordan, 223 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2000); Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255 (7th Cir. 1990).

-

[FN6] Maiorano v. Baltimore & O R Co, 213 U.S. 268, 29 S. Ct. 424, 53 L. Ed. 792 (1909); Ex parte Cooper,

143 U.S. 472, 12 S. Ct. 453, 36 L. Ed. 232, 1 Alaska Fed. 244 (1892); U.S. v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct.

234, 30 L. Ed. 425 (1886); Ex parte McCabe, 46 F. 363 (W.D. Tex. 1891); Techt v. Hughes, 229 N.Y. 222, 128

N.E. 185, 11 A.L.R. 166 (1920); Bondi v. Mackay, 87 Vt. 271, 89 A. 228 (1913).

-

[FN7] § 13.

-

[FN8] Maiorano v. Baltimore & O R Co, 213 U.S. 268, 29 S. Ct. 424, 53 L. Ed. 792 (1909); U.S. v. Rauscher,

119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425 (1886); Ex parte McCabe, 46 F. 363 (W.D. Tex. 1891); Dominguez v.

State, 90 Tex. Crim. 92, 234 S.W. 79, 18 A.L.R. 503 (1921) (holding that a treaty may be set up as a defense to

a criminal prosecution instituted in disregard thereof).

-

[FN9] Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt, 101 Minn. 197, 112 N.W. 395 (1907).

-

[FN10] Kennett v. Chambers, 55 U.S. 38, 14 How. 38, 14 L. Ed. 316 (1852).

-

[FN11] Prevost v. Greneaux, 60 U.S. 1, 19 How. 1, 15 L. Ed. 572 (1856).

-

[FN12] More v. Intelcom Support Services, Inc., 960 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1992).

- § 3.

-

[FN13] U.S. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2.

- Dreyfus v. Von Finck, 534 F.2d 24, 34 A.L.R. Fed. 377 (2d Cir. 1976); Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum

Corp., 595 F.2d 1287 (3d Cir. 1979).

-

[FN14] U.S. Const. Art. 6, cl. 2.

- U.S. v. Li, 206 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 956, 121 S. Ct. 378, 148 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2000)

and cert. denied, 531 U.S. 956, 121 S. Ct. 379, 148 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2000) and cert. denied, 531 U.S. 956, 121 S.

Ct. 379, 148 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2000); U.S. ex rel. Saroop v. Garcia, 109 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 1997); Goldstar

(Panama) S.A. v. U.S., 967 F.2d 965 (4th Cir. 1992); U.S. v. Jimenez-Nava, 243 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 121 S. Ct. 2620, 150 L. Ed. 2d 773 (U.S. 2001); U.S. v. Page, 232 F.3d 536, 2000 FED App. 388P (6th

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1389, 149 L. Ed. 2d 312 (U.S. 2001) and cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1965, 149

L. Ed. 2d 759 (U.S. 2001) and cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1965, 149 L. Ed. 2d 759 (U.S. 2001) and cert. denied,

121 S. Ct. 2202, 149 L. Ed. 2d 1032 (U.S. 2001); Garza v. Lappin, 253 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,

121 S. Ct. 2543, 150 L. Ed. 2d 708 (U.S. 2001); U.S. v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 531 U.S. 1026, 121 S. Ct. 599, 148 L. Ed. 2d 513 (2000).

-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES § 35

END OF DOCUMENT

74 Am. Jur. 2d Treaties Correlation Table

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Treaties

Joseph T. Latronica, J.D.

Topic Summary

Correlation Table

Treaties

1 ............................................................................ §1

2 ............................................................................ §2

3 ............................................................................ §3

4 ............................................................................ §2

5 ............................................................................ §4

6, 7 ............................................................................ §5

8 ............................................................................ §6

9 ............................................................................ §7

10 ............................................................................ §8

11 ............................................................................ §9

12 ............................................................................ §10

13 ............................................................................ §11

14 ............................................................................ §12

15 ............................................................................ §13

16 ............................................................................ §14

17 ............................................................................ §15

18 ............................................................................ §16

19 ............................................................................ §17

20 ............................................................................ §18

21 ............................................................................ §19

22 ............................................................................ §20

23 ............................................................................ §21

24 ............................................................................ §22

25 ............................................................................ §23

26 ............................................................................ §24

27 ............................................................................ §25

28 ............................................................................ §26

29 ............................................................................ §27

30 ............................................................................ §28

31 ............................................................................ §29

32 ............................................................................ §30

33 ............................................................................ §31

34 ............................................................................ §32

35 ............................................................................ §33

36 ............................................................................ §34

37 ............................................................................ §35

Treaties

This table shows where the subject matter of the various sections of articles in the first edition of American

Jurisprudence is treated in American Jurisprudence 2d. It enables one to translate references in the Am Jur

General Index, in AM JUR FORMS books, in AM JUR PROOF OF FACTS, and in AM JUR TRIALS, as well

as the many references to "Am Jur" in the reported cases in other legal publications, into references to Am Jur

2d.

When a particular subject matter is treated in another topic the title of the other topic is indicated.

The reader should always consult the volume index for detail and for matter not appearing in the first edition.

1 ............................................................................ §Scope note; §1

2 ............................................................................ §3

3 ............................................................................ §4

4 ............................................................................ §5

5 ............................................................................ §2

6 ............................................................................ §7

7 ............................................................................ §6

8 ............................................................................ §8

9 ............................................................................ §9

10 ............................................................................ §9

11 ............................................................................ §9

12 ............................................................................ §10

13 ............................................................................ §11

14 ............................................................................ §12

15 ............................................................................ §13

16 ............................................................................ §14

17 ............................................................................ §15

18 ............................................................................ §19

19 ............................................................................ §16

20 ............................................................................ §17

21 ............................................................................ §18

22 ............................................................................ §35

23 ............................................................................ §36

24 ............................................................................ §37

25 ............................................................................ §21, §22

26 ............................................................................ §26

27 ............................................................................ §27

28 ............................................................................ §28

29 ............................................................................ §30, §33

30 ............................................................................ §31

31 ............................................................................ §22, §32

32 ............................................................................ §23

33 ............................................................................ §29

34 ............................................................................ §24

35 ............................................................................ §10

36 ............................................................................ §25

37 ............................................................................ §22

38 ............................................................................ §23

39 ............................................................................ §19, §20

40 ............................................................................ §31, §33

41 ............................................................................ §23, §34

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. 33-34B © 2011 Thomson Reuters/RIA. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. All

rights reserved.

AMJUR TREATIES COR

END OF DOCUMENT