Despite the complexity of national self-doctrine, treaties and other international agreements operate in a dual international and national legal context.126 In the international context, international agreements have traditionally been binding treaties between sovereign nations and create rights and obligations that nations owe to each other under international law.127 how it implements its contractual agreement. 128 The doctrine of self-execution concerns the implementation of a treaty provision in the United States. Some scientists argue that, although non-autonomous provisions do not have a private right of recourse, parties to the trial may still invoke non-autonomous provisions on the defensive or where another source is available for a remedy.123 Other courts and commentators argue that non-enforceable provisions do not have enforceable rights. 124 For the time being, the exact status of non-self-executive contracts in national law has not been resolved.125 See z.B. Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 415 (debate on „Executive Agreements to Settle Claims of U.S. Nationals Against Foreign Governments as early as 1799“); Law of 20 February 1792, § 26, 1 Stat. 239 (Law of the Second Congress authorizing postal executive agreements). Zschernig has rested for some time and, although he was recently mentioned by the Court of Justice, he remains the only holding company in which the Court has used a dormant external relations force to repress state law.
In the 1990s, there was a resurgence of academic interest in Zschernig, when some state and local governments were looking for ways to express dissatisfaction with the human rights policies of foreign governments or restrict trade with non-golfing countries.20Our note on the rights of michael D. Ramsey.B, The Power of the States in Foreign Affairs: The Original Understanding of Foreign Policy Federalism, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 341 (1999); Carlos Manuel Vazquez, Whither Zschernig?, 46 Vill. L. Rev. 1259 (2001); Jack L. Goldsmith, Federal Court, Foreign Affairs and Federalism, 83 Va. L. Rev. 1617 (1997); Peter J.
Spiro, Foreign Relations Federalism, 70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1223 (1999). See also Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution 149-69 (2nd edition 1996). In 1999, the Tribunal overturned the Massachusetts Burma Sanctions Act on the basis of the legal right of pre-emption and refused to consider the alternative position of the Court of Appeal using Zschernig.21FootnoteCrosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.P. 363, 374 n.8 (2000). With regard to the appeal of the Zzernig Court of Appeal, cf. National Council for Foreign Trade against Natsios, 181 F.3d 38, 49-61 (1st cir.
1999). Similarly, in 2003, the Court ruled that the California Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act was anticipated as an interference in the foreign policy of the Confederation, which is reflected in executive agreements, and although the Zschernig Court of Justice had somehow discussed at length, it did not see the need to resolve issues related to its scope.22FootnoteAmerican Ins. .