The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Separation of Powers, Treaty-Making, and Treaty Withdrawal 三权分立、条约制定和条约撤销

The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law Pub Date : 2018-09-18 DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190653330.013.8

Pierre-Hugues Verdier, Mila Versteeg

{"title":"Separation of Powers, Treaty-Making, and Treaty Withdrawal","authors":"Pierre-Hugues Verdier, Mila Versteeg","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190653330.013.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190653330.013.8","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines from a comparative perspective the national legal regimes that govern treaty-making and treaty withdrawal, functions that in many countries were traditionally vested in the executive. Drawing from an original data set that covers 101 countries for the period 1815–2013, the chapter identifies several large-scale trends. First, it confirms a sustained trend toward greater parliamentary involvement in treaty-making. Second, it shows that many countries recognize executive agreements and other alternative procedures through which the executive can conclude internationally binding agreements without parliamentary approval, but that these “workarounds” are typically subject to significant constraints affecting the executive’s discretion and the domestic legal status of the resulting agreements. Third, it shows that in recent years several countries have introduced constraints on the executive’s ability to withdraw from treaties without parliamentary approval. Finally, it draws attention to the little-noticed role of national judiciaries in treaty-making, by showing that in many legal systems treaties are subject to constitutional review prior to ratification. The chapter discusses the implications of these four trends, all of which represent moves away from the executive-dominated world of traditional treaty relations. It hypothesizes that these trends respond to growing separation of powers concerns as treaties increasingly shape domestic law.","PeriodicalId":237106,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116340378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

U.S. War Powers and the Potential Benefits of Comparativism 美国的战争力量和比较主义的潜在好处

The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law Pub Date : 2018-05-04 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3018625

C. Bradley

{"title":"U.S. War Powers and the Potential Benefits of Comparativism","authors":"C. Bradley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3018625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3018625","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes U.S. law governing the use of military force, and it considers the potential value of comparative study of how different countries regulate the issue. As the chapter notes, there is significant uncertainty and debate in the United States over the distribution of authority concerning the use of force—in particular, over whether and to what extent military actions must be authorized by Congress. Because courts in the modern era have generally declined to review the legality of military actions, disputes over this issue have had to be resolved, as a practical matter, through the political process. For those who believe that it is important to have legislative involvement in decisions to use force, the political process has not proven to be satisfactory: presidents have often used military force without obtaining congressional approval, and Congress generally has done little to resist such presidential unilateralism. The United States is not the only country to struggle with regulating the domestic authority to use military force. This issue of foreign relations law is common to constitutional democracies, and nations vary substantially in how they have addressed it. Comparative study of such approaches should be of inherent interest to scholars and students, including those trying to better understand the U.S. approach. Whether and to what extent such study should also inform the interpretation or revision of U.S. law presents a more complicated set of questions that are affected in part by one’s legal methodology and how the comparative materials are being invoked.","PeriodicalId":237106,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law","volume":"229 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133074482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

首页上一页