1. Forgive one more word on this tangent. Whether and how GA resolutions contribute to customary international law is actually quite controversial among international lawyers, as is whether a particular state's acceptance of a resolution makes a difference (putting aside the possibility of persistent objection to the underlying norm). In my view, a particular vote for a GA resolution, which is clearly non-binding in and of itself and would be understood as such by the voting state, could tip the scales in favor of a binding norm against it only in extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Martin may be depending on the exceptional fact that the resolution in question was particular or regional in character (i.e., dealing with U.S. territory), and thus *might* bind the state(s) especially implicated and voting in favor of it. But that's different than GA resolutions of general application, which may be what prompted the previous poster's concern. Errr, with respect to the weight! given such resolutions by Article III courts, esp. as to questions of U.S. constitutional law, I add for sake of topicality.
2. On the subject of secession and self-rule, it's interesting that the draft EU constitution (at least the last draft I saw) would permit Member States to withdraw after it comes into force, but only if withdrawal were approved by a qualified majority of the remaining members. For those interested not only in this particular hybrid of int'l and const'l law, but also for comparative constitutional law in general, what's going on in Brussels is fascinating -- horizontal and vertical separation of powers, citizenship, individual rights, textual commitments to democratic life, secession (and being thrown out, too), it's all being scripted right now. Best regards, Ed Swaine -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 3:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: self-rule Prof. Scarberry writes: > The extent to which US law of various kinds may be affected by international > law is a topic we have previously discussed on this list. I don't know the > details or context of the particular resolution cited below, but if UN > General Assembly resolutions are viewed by some as creating international > law, that is one more reason to resist incorporation of international law > into our domestic legal regime. > International law experts do not generally consider GA resolutions to be > binding expressions of international law, do they? In light of the > irresponsible and reprehensible resolutions often adopted by the GA, I > certainly hope not. Comment: General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. However, they are evidence of customary international law, which is binding on the U.S. if the U.S. accepts the resolution. In the case of UN Gen. Assembly Res. 748, the U.S. did. Whether there have been "irresponsible and reprehensible resolutions," I just don't know to which resolutions to which you are referring and whether the U.S. voted in favor of them. Francisco Forrest Martin
