{"id":529285,"date":"2010-04-15T15:00:13","date_gmt":"2010-04-15T19:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/opiniojuris.org\/?p=11971"},"modified":"2010-04-15T15:00:13","modified_gmt":"2010-04-15T19:00:13","slug":"a-response-to-ingrid-wuerth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/529285","title":{"rendered":"A Response to Ingrid Wuerth"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><em>by John F. Coyle <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Many  thanks to Ingrid Wuerth for her thoughtful response to my Article.<\/p>\n<p>I agree with Ingrid that the importance of maintaining a uniform  international  standard in the interpretation of incorporative statutes may be  especially  salient in the context of treaties, like the Hague Rules, that address  coordination problems.\u00a0 I disagree, however, that the borrowed  treaty rule is of little salience in the context of human rights  treaties  that seek to establish minimum international standards.\u00a0 An  international  standard contained in a human rights treaty is typically invoked by  domestic litigants only where its application would result in increased  protection of individual rights; it is the rare case in which the  government  is the first to cite to a human rights treaty.\u00a0 In most (though  not all) cases, a presumption requiring the court to consult the  relevant  international standard as a prelude to interpreting a domestic statute  implementing that treaty seems likely to produce tangible benefits <em> vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> individual rights.\u00a0 Certainly this was true in <em> INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca<\/em>, where the petitioner successfully urged  the Supreme Court to interpret incorporative statutes that are part  of the Immigration and Nationality Act to conform them to the relevant  international standard.\u00a0 A presumption that the court should conform  its construction of an incorporative statute to the international  standard  would do even more to promote individual rights.\u00a0 Consequently,  I believe that the widespread application of the borrowed treaty rule  could have a direct and positive impact on the domestic implementation  of human rights treaties.\u00a0 Its utility is not limited exclusively  to coordinative treaties.<\/p>\n<p>Ingrid also suggests that the Supreme Court in <em>Sanchez-Llamas<\/em> rejected the notion that U.S. courts should seek to interpret a  particular  treaty in the way that an international tribunal would.\u00a0 To be  clear, I am not arguing that U.S. courts should view themselves as  international  tribunals when seeking to determine the meaning of incorporative  statutes.\u00a0  Rather, I suggest that these courts should take a broad perspective  on the nature of the interpretive project before them.\u00a0 Rather  than reading an incorporative statute as though it were any other  statute,  the court should take into account the fact that a portion of the  statutory  text is derived from an international treaty and that other courts\u2014at the national and international level\u2014may likewise be called upon  to consider the meaning of the source treaty.\u00a0 While there can  be no doubt that the Supreme Court in <em>Sanchez-Llamas<\/em> gave short  shrift to the views of the ICJ, there are many other examples where  that court and the lower federal courts have looked to international  and foreign law sources in order to determine the meaning of treaties  and incorporative statutes.\u00a0 In taking this broad view, these courts  have stepped outside their own legal system in an attempt to ascertain,  as much as possible, the meaning of the relevant provisions in the  (international)  legal system from which they were taken.\u00a0 The borrowed treaty rule  would require that U.S. courts take a similarly broad view.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, I am not convinced that the <em>Charming Betsy<\/em> canon is,  as Ingrid suggests, an adequate substitute for the borrowed treaty  rule.\u00a0  The <em>Charming Betsy<\/em> canon applies where (1) a statute is ambiguous   and (2) there is an actual conflict between one plausible construction  of the statute and a rule of international law.\u00a0 Absent ambiguity  or an actual conflict, the canon is inapposite.\u00a0 The borrowed treaty  rule, by comparison, applies to guide the interpretations of all  incorporative  statutes regardless of whether they are ambiguous, and its application  is also not predicated on the existence of any conflict.\u00a0 As such,  the borrowed treaty rule is more likely to result in interpretations  of incorporative statutes that are faithful to the meaning of the  underlying  treaty than is the <em>Charming Betsy<\/em> canon.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/feeds.feedburner.com\/~r\/opiniojurisfeed\/~4\/h7hUNRvQ0r8\" height=\"1\" width=\"1\"\/><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by John F. Coyle Many thanks to Ingrid Wuerth for her thoughtful response to my Article. I agree with Ingrid that the importance of maintaining a uniform international standard in the interpretation of incorporative statutes may be especially salient in the context of treaties, like the Hague Rules, that address coordination problems.\u00a0 I disagree, however, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6771,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-529285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6771"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=529285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=529285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=529285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=529285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}