Senate Materials and Treaty Interpretation
Some Research Hints for the Supreme Court
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9540082 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Detlev F Vagts (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1989 |
| Volume | 83 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 546-550 |
| Publication date | 1989-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0002-9300 • E-ISSN: 2161-7953 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2203314 |
| OpenAlex | W2334205843 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
In his concurring opinion in the recent tax treaty case United States v. Stuart , Justice Scalia reports that “I have been unable to discover a single case in which this Court has consulted the Senate debate, committee hearings or committee reports” to interpret a treaty. Even more sweepingly, he says that two 1988 opinions in a district court are the “first (and, as far as I am aware, the only) federal decisions relying upon pre-ratification Senate materials for the interpretation of a treaty.” He moves from there to conclude that the “Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §314, Comment d (1986); id. , §325, Reporter’s [sic] Note 5 ... must be regarded as a proposal for change rather than a restatement of existing doctrine.” Those are the paragraphs in which the Restatement approves the use of such materials
Certiorari · Concurring opinion · Interpretation (philosophy · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Politics · Ratification · Supreme court · Treaty · Corporate Taxation and Avoidance · Finance, Taxation, and Governance · Law · Philosophy · Taxation and Legal Issues
| Citations per year | 0.09 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1993 - 2008 (16) |
| Highly cited | No |