Re: Another translation posted

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Fri Jun 19 2009 - 14:05:49 CDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Another translation posted"

    On 19 Jun 2009, at 18:45, Mark Crispin wrote:

    >> In general, though, copyright, trademarks, and patents are
    >> regulated all by local law, and though there may be treaties to
    >> adjust them, these treaties are not law.
    > I don't know about Sweden, but treaties are most emphatically law in
    > the USA; in fact, they are co-equal to the US Constitution.

    The link I gave (see quotation below)
    explains the difference between "self-executing treaties" that do not
    require implementing legislation,
    and other treaties that only take effect by such legislation, in which
    case it is the law that is legally valid and not the treaty. It hangs
    on the interpretation of the term "Supreme Law of the Land" in the US

     From what I recall, human rights, war-crimes, and crimes against
    humanity, fall into the former category, but other treaties do not.

    But some expert in the matter of US law may clarify.


    Under the Constitution, a treaty, like a Federal statute, is part
    of the ‘‘supreme Law of the Land.’’ Self-executing treaties, those
    that do not require implementing legislation, automatically become
    effective as domestic law immediately upon entry into force. Other
    treaties do not become effective as domestic law until implementing
    legislation is enacted, and then technically it is the legislation, not
    the treaty unless incorporated into the legislation, that is the law
    of the land.
    Sometimes it is not clear on the face of a treaty whether it is
    self-executing or requires implementing legislation. Some treaties
    expressly call for implementing legislation or deal with subjects
    clearly requiring congressional action, such as the appropriation of
    funds or enactment of domestic penal provisions. The question of
    whether or not a treaty requires implementing legislation or is self-
    executing is a matter of interpretation largely by the executive
    branch or, less frequently, by the courts. On occasion, the Senate
    includes an understanding in the resolution of ratification that cer-
    tain provisions are not self-executing or that the President is to ex-
    change or deposit the instrument of ratification only after imple-
    mentation legislation has been enacted.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 19 2009 - 14:08:06 CDT