Drawing the connections between the US Constitution and international law was challenging, but there are some interesting parallels. One of the key aspects of the Constitution is federalism, essentially granting states certain rights and privileges as unified part of a single national government system. In international law, federalism can become very complicated. Federalism in other countries of the world typically grants partial autonomy to subunits of a nation. The question of international law then becomes what if foreign nations wish to establish close ties with that subunit because potentially of previous ethnic ties (Rubin 2017, 195). Potentially, a subunit decides to declare independence, based on the legal principle of self-determination, which is the legal right for people to decide their own destiny in the international order. In such cases, does federalism or international law take precedence?
Another key aspect is popular sovereignty, which is a controversial political doctrine that suggests that the government is created and sustained by the consent of the people. In international law, popular sovereignty takes on the concept of state sovereignty, which is the ability, power, and immunity of a state or territory to make autonomous choice. Political sovereignty is a reflection of popular sovereignty, because if a state does not respect the popular will of its people, it risks losing its attributions and facing turmoil. At the same time, international law emphasizes the right of the state, therefore its people, to autonomy from other countries in their self-determination, culture, and politics.
Checks and balances is a fundamental feature of the Constitution, creating a system where no one branch of government can concentrate an overwhelming amount of power, with other branches having the ability to legally limit it. In international law, checks and balances are often involved as a means to prevent one country having more power and privilege, at least, legally over others. One prime example is the UN Security Council, which has 5 permanent members, and 10 rotating members. The way that it is set up, given that the US can influence many of the other members, or Russia and China commonly agree on issues, no resolution can pass if a single permanent member veto it. The practicality of such systems is another discussion, but it limits the power of such influential nations such as the US or China who can influence or pressure others to pass a one-sided resolution.
One of the most immediate international actions done by the US recently was to enact sanctions against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, limiting Russia’s access to its finances, and sanctioning its key industries (Macias and Franck 2022). This is arguably constitutional because Russia violated the sovereignty of another nation, broke multiple international treaties and conventions, and is in direct violation of the UN charter. Sanctions are an effective means of creating pressure and consequences stop the ongoing violence. Following the same topic, the US has recently announced that it was offering direct aid to Ukraine, including offering defensive military equipment such as anti-air and anti-tank missiles, but not going as far as providing offensive capabilities in terms of fighter planes (Kinzer 2022) The aid provided by US government is constitutional because it was part of a comprehensive budgetary package approved by Congress, and it is seen as a tool for the country to conduct its foreign affairs. From an international law perspective, it is legal as well since it is defensive and humanitarian aid meant to support Ukraine’s right to sovereignty and self-determination.
In other news, the US and UK begin talks this week on deepening trade connections, investment, and work towards a potential free trade deal as the UK has left the EU (Wall 2022). These are trade negotiations and is constitutional because the US Constitution provides the federal government with the right to negotiate foreign affair and conduct international trade on behalf of the whole nation. It is also normal and the status quo under international law to establish trading treaties with certain preferences and benefits for partner countries.
Reference List
Kinzer, Stephen. 2022. “US Military Aid to Ukraine Guarantees More Suffering and Death.”The Boston Globe, 2022.
Macias, Amanda, and Thomas Franck. 2022. “Biden Administration Expands Sanctions Against Russia, Cutting Off U.S. Transactions with Central Bank.”CNBC, 2022.
Rubin, Edward L. 2017. “The Role of Federalism in International Law.” Boston College International and Comparative Review 40, no. 2: 195-243. Web.
Wall, Martin. 2022. “US and UK Start Talks on Deepening Trade and Investment Links.”The Irish Times, 2022.