09.01.2015 Views

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Government Merits Brief - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

31<br />

253, 306 (1829); see generally U.S. Br. at 11-16, Bustillo v.<br />

Johnson, No. 05-51 (to be argued March 29, 2006).<br />

To be sure, treaties can, and on occasion do, create judicially<br />

enforceable private rights. But since such treaties are<br />

the exception, rather than the rule, there is a presumption<br />

that a treaty will be enforced through political and diplomatic<br />

channels, rather than through the courts. United States v.<br />

Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377, 389-390 (6th Cir. 2001), cert.<br />

denied, 535 U.S. 977 (2002); United States v. De La Pava, 268<br />

F.3d 157, 164 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v. Jimenez-Nava,<br />

243 F.3d 192, 195-196 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 962<br />

(2001); United States v. Li, 206 F.3d 56, 61 (1st Cir.), cert.<br />

denied, 531 U.S. 956 (2000). That background principle applies<br />

even when a treaty benefits private individuals. See 2<br />

Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the<br />

United States § 907 cmt. a, at 395 (1987) (“International<br />

agreements, even those directly benefitting private persons,<br />

generally do not create private rights or provide for a private<br />

right of action in domestic courts.”). And it applies wholly<br />

apart from whether the treaty is self-executing (i.e., whether<br />

the treaty requires implementing legislation to be given effect).<br />

See 1 id. § 111 cmt. h, at 47; Carlos Manuel Vazquez,<br />

The Four Doctrines of Self-Executing Treaties, 89 Am. J. Int’l<br />

L. 695, 721 (1995).<br />

In Eisentrager, this Court held that captured Nazi combatants<br />

challenging the jurisdiction of a military tribunal<br />

could not invoke the 1929 version of the Geneva Convention<br />

because the Convention was not judicially enforceable. 339<br />

U.S. at 789. Like the current version of the Convention, the<br />

1929 version contained various provisions that protected individual<br />

rights. See, e.g., Convention Relative to the Treatment<br />

of Prisoners of War, July 27, 1929, arts. 2, 3, 16, 42, 47 Stat.<br />

2021, 2031, 2036, 2045, 118 L.N.T.S. 343, 357, 363, 373 (1929<br />

Convention). The Court explained, however, that the Conven-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!