5cjxburmr

State responsibility. 1711.10.1.4 Force of International Law Notwithstanding a State’s Domestic Law. AState’s domestic law does not justify that State’s noncompliance with an international obligationas a matter of international law. 172 Similarly, the fact that a State’s domestic law does notprovide for a penalty with respect to a violation of international law does not relieve a personfrom responsibility for that act under international law. 1731.10.2 Force of the Law of War Under U.S. Domestic Law. The specific legal force of alaw of war rule under U.S. domestic law may depend on whether that rule takes the form of aself-executing treaty, non-self-executing treaty, or customary international law.Longstanding DoD policy has been to require DoD personnel to comply with the law ofwar obligations of the United States. 174Even if a violation of a rule is not directly punishable under U.S. law, a variety of tools inU.S. domestic law may be used to enforce a law of war obligation of the United States. Forexample, a violation of a law of war obligation may be made punishable through implementationof the obligation in military instructions, regulations, and procedures. 1751.10.2.1 Force of Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties Under U.S.Domestic Law. Under domestic law, treaties to which the United States is a Party are part ofU.S. law. 176The terms “self-executing” and “non-self-executing” may be used to explain how a treatyis to take effect in U.S. domestic law. A treaty may be classified as a self-executing treaty that“operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision,” or as a non-self-executing treatythat would require “that the Legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule forthe Court.” 177171 Refer to § 18.22.1 (Individual Criminal Responsibility for Acts Constituting Crimes Under International Law).172 Secretary of State Bayard, Instruction to Mr. Connery, charge to Mexico, Nov. 1, 1887, II MOORE’S DIGEST 235(“[A] government can not appeal to its municipal regulations as an answer to demands for the fulfillment ofinternational duties. Such regulations may either exceed or fall short of the requirements of international law, and ineither case that law furnishes the test of the nation’s liability and not its own municipal rules.”). Consider VCLT art.27 (“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Thisrule is without prejudice to article 46.”).173 Refer to § 18.22.2 (Absence of Penalty Under Domestic Law Does Not Relieve a Person of Responsibility).174 Refer to § 18.1.1 (DoD Policy on Implementing and Enforcing the Law of War).175 Refer to § 18.7 (Instructions, Regulations, and Procedures to Implement and Enforce the Law of War).176 See U.S. CONSTITUTION art. VI (“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made inpursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall bethe supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution orlaws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”).177 Foster & Elam v. Neilson 27 U.S. 253, 314 (1829) (Marshall, C.J.). See also Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S.190, 194 (1888) (“A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded bywriters on public law. For the infraction of its provisions a remedy must be sought by the injured party through38