1 Vattel, Emmerich De,The Law of Nations, at 24 (1792).Google Scholar

2 See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936) (quoting John Marshall's March 7, 1800, speech in the U.S. House of Representatives).

3 U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 10.

4 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

5 See Henken, Louis ,Foreign Affairs and the US Constitution, at 211-14 (2d ed.1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar But see Jinks, Derek&Sloss, David ,Is the President Bound by the Geneva Conventions?, 90 Cornell L. Rev. 97 (2004).Google Scholar

6 Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art. 61, 62, 1155 U .N .T .S . 331, 346-47, 8 ILM 679,702. Identical positions are reflected in th e Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1986).

7 See, e.g., Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).

8 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804); see also Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch)1 (1801).

9 The term refers to a concerted effort by states and groups hostile to the United States to devise the legal rules that uniquely handicap it, paired with a barrage of false allegations that the United States constantly breaches new humanitarian norms. See Jr.Dunlap, Charles J.,The Role of the Lawyer in War: It A in't No TV Show: JAGs and Modem Military Operations, 4 Chi. J. Intl . L . 479,480 (2003).Google Scholar

10 See Jr.Rivkin, David B.&Casey, Lee A.,The Rocky Shoals of International Law, Nat'l Int ., Winter 2000/2001, at 35.Google Scholar

11 See Bd. of County Commn'rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 711 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting).