Re: Self-Executing Status of WIPO Copyright Treaty

On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Darrell Panethiere <darrell.panethiere[_at_]ifpi.org> wrote:
>
> And the nature, or even the existence of implementing legislation
> cannot matter. WIPO will accept instruments of ratification even in
> the absence of any implementation. As you know, that is only required
> once the treaties go into force.
>
> I would even go so far as to say that even if an Act purporting to
> implement a treaty were to include something as specific as a direction
> to the State Department that deposit should not occur until two years
> after a vote on ratification, there would still be no leeway to delay.
> If the Senate still votes to ratify -- through a separate vote -- that
> has to be respected as an act of Constitutional significance. Whatever
> else the Congress may done in the course of passing ordinary federal
> legislation cannot be used to lessen the significance of their act of
> ratifying a treaty. The Senate is not the Congress. The consent of the
> House and the President is required for ordinary legislation, but not
> for ratification. I simply cannot believe that any reason that anyone
> could devise would ever be sufficient to halt the process once the
> Senate has voted.
>

OK, I know less than nothing about international law, so forgive me if this is a stupid question. But does ratification of the treaty necessarily imply that it is self-executing?

Mark Lemley
<mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> Received on Wed Jun 23 1999 - 16:20:55 GMT