Human Rights Litigation and the "One-Voice" Orthodoxy in Foreign Affairs (From World Justice? U.S. Courts and International Human Rights, P 23-58, 1991, Mark Gibney, ed. -- See NCJ-129558)

• NCJ Number: 129560
• Author(s): R G Steinhardt
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 36 pages
• Sale Source: Westview Press, Inc
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The "one-voice" orthodoxy in foreign affairs is challenged by the U.S. Constitution's "invitation to struggle" with foreign policy among the three branches of government.

Abstract

The "one-voice" orthodoxy regarding U.S. foreign policy and relations holds that all three branches of government must reflect a common posture in U.S. foreign policy. For the judicial branch, this means deferring to the political executive and legislative branches in determining the U.S. position vis-a-vis issues involving international law. The courts would not assume jurisdiction nor render decisions that would undermine foreign policy developed by the political branches or embarrass the executive branch in its diplomatic relations. The U.S. Constitution, however, does not encourage this "one-voice" orthodoxy. Instead, it fosters tension between the governmental branches as they assume their respective responsibilities in the international arena. The U.S. courts must fulfill their responsibility in interpreting international law, including human rights mandates, even when court actions might embarrass or undermine the foreign relations being cultivated by the political branches. 118 footnotes