national organization, the Delian Confederacy, 477 B.C., between Athens, the Greek cities, and the Great Islands of the Aegean, fell, not because Athens overcharged her allies. The contributions of men, money, and ships exacted from members were set up by Aristides the Just, and historians consider them reasonable. But the Greek allies could not endure the domination of Athens. They resented the fact that the important lawsuits from the Aegean Islands and the Greek cities were tried at Athens and they insisted that they should control their local governments. So the first international league failed and was destroyed.

When the Dutch resisted the Spanish for one hundred years so stubbornly that Alva suggested to Philip II that he would have to exterminate the people, it was because the Dutch were determined to control their own lives. The Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence arose from the same human reactions and, in truth, the desperate resistance movements of World War II show that the spirit of independence still lives in the heart of mankind. As a matter of fact, independence is not only vital to the countries which cherish it, but its maintenance in every nation is essential to the peace of the world. In so far as treaties, conventions, and international regulations directly and substantially encroach upon the inherently domestic jurisdiction and attempt to regulate rights and obligations, employment, hours

of labor, rates of pay, and relationships of persons permanently within the borders of any country whose activities are performed within that country, they are not wisely calculated to reduce international tension, for they interfere with what man has fought for and will fight for through the centuries-freedom and independence.

E. ARTICLES AGAINST THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION

THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION--ITS EFFECT ON OUR LEGAL SYSTEM By Orie L. Phillips*

On June 16, 1949, the President transmitted to the Senate the Convention on Genocide with the request that. the Senate give its advice and consent to its ratification.

By this Treaty the contracting parties confirm that genocide is, "A crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and punish."

Article II and III of the Convention read:

"ARTICLE II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religions group, as such:

(n) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(e) Deliberately Inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

"ARTICLE III

"The following acts shall be punishable:

́(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

'(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(c) Complicity in genoelde.

Article V obligates the contracting partles to ennet the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention and to provide effective penaltles "for persons guilty of genoelde or any of the other nets enumerated in Article III."

Article VI provides that 'persons charged with genocide or any of the other nets enumerated in Article II shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the state' in which the net was committed, or by 'such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to such contracting parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.'

Article IX provides that disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present convention,' shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any party to the dispute.

Thus, it will be seen that it is proposed by the action of the President, consented to by two-thirds of the Senators present' when Senate action is taken, to define certain acts, which have traditionally been regarded as domestic crimes, as international crimes and to obligate the United States to provide for their punishment and for the trial of persons accused thereof either in our domestic courts or in an international tribunal.

Treaty-making power is reviewed

"It would seem appropriate, therefore, to review the treaty-making power. Section 2 of Article 11 of the United States Constitution authorizes the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.

The power is not one granted by the states. Neither did the powers of external sovereignty depend on the affirmative grants of the Constitution. If they had not been mentioned in the Constitution, they would have vested in the Federal Government as necessary concomitants of nationality. They embrace all the powers of government necessary to maintain an effective control of international relations.'

44. . . the external powers of the United States are to be exercised without regard to state laws or policies."*

44.. the field which affects international relations is the one aspect of our government that from the first has been most generally conceded Imperatively to demand broad national authority,"a

́The treaty-making power is not Hmited by any express provision in the Con stitution. But it does not authorize what the Constitution forbids mid. Its exertise must not be inconsistent with the unture of our Government and the relation between the states and the United States."

See Art. II. ↑ 2 United States Constitution,

* United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 200 U.S. 304, 315-318

• United States v. Belmont, 301 11.8. 324, 331.

• United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 232.

• Asakura v. Seattle, 205 1.8. 332, 341; Holden v. Joμ, 81 1LS

211, 213; Acofroy V.

The treaty-making power is not subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the power of Congress to ennet legislation, and treaties may be made which affect rights under the control of the states."

Treaty is equivalent to statute

A trenty, entered into in accordance with constitutional requirements, to the extent that it is self-executing, has the force and effect of a legislative ennetment and to all intents and purposes is the equivalent of an Act of Congress. In addition to being an International contract, it becomes munfelpal law of the United States and of each of the states, and the judges of every state are bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.'

In the event of a conflict between a trenty mnde in accordance with constitutional requirements and the provisions of a state constitution or a state statute. whether enneted prior or subsequently to the making of the treaty, the treaty will control."

But, a treaty may be abrogated by the enactment of a subsequent federal statute which is clearly inconsistent therewith."

"Thus, it will be seen that it is proposed that we set out on a course, under a power without express Hmitation and of brond scope, to enact domestic criminal law, without any concurrence by the House of Representatives, the body tradiflomlly regarded as closest to the people.

Moreover, if the offenses Involved should be regarded as international in character by Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to define and punish . . . offenses against the law of nations.' Convention would become supreme law of land

'Since the Convention In most respects is self-executing, in those respects, on ratification, it would become the supreme law of the land. That would not be true as to any other contracting party except France and a few other states. Even If non-self-executing, the obligation to Implement the Treaty by legislation Is as bluding as the Treaty itself.

It is one of our fundamental concepts that a legislative body, in the exercise of its power to declare what constitutes a crime, must define it so as to inform persons subject thereto, with reasonable precision, what it intends to prohibit so they may have a certain and understandable rule of conduct and know what it is their duty to avoid. 'A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its menning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.'"

Do the definitions in Articles II and III of the Convention meet that test? What is a part of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group—one member, two members, how many?

If an act was done with intent to destroy two members of a group, although netunted by no malice toward the group as such, would that be genoelde?

Would it not be more accurate and desirable if the prerequisite intent was defined as un net committed with intent to injure one of the enumerated groups ns such, so as to make it clear the act must be directed toward the group as such and not merely at an individual member or members thereof?

"What is meant by mental harm?

Does not complicity mean the net of an accessory, or to nid, nbet, nssist, or incite genoelde?

A person accused of an offense defined by the Convention, If tried by an international penal tribunal, would not be surrounded by the safeguards we accord persons charged with domestic crimes.

Should we ratify Convention with reservations!

In the event we ratify the Convention, should we, by reservation, expressly provide that citizens of the United States and persons within the territorial Jurisdicion of the United States, charged with an offense defined in the Convention will be subject to trial and sentence only by a competent Judicial tribunal

* Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 432.

7 See Valentine v. Neidercker, 299 U.S. 5, 10; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 100, 194. * Santovincenzo v. Egon, 281 U.S. 30, 40; Nielsen v. Johnson, 275 U.S. 47, 52. Whitney v. Dominguez, 1:30 U.S. 238, 247; 52 Am. Jur. Treatica, 818 (21; Note A.R.R. 895.