{"id":6274,"date":"2013-03-05T09:41:43","date_gmt":"2013-03-05T14:41:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/?p=6274"},"modified":"2013-10-03T20:07:19","modified_gmt":"2013-10-04T00:07:19","slug":"consent-to-the-use-of-force-and-international-law-supremacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2013\/03\/consent-to-the-use-of-force-and-international-law-supremacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Consent to the Use of Force and International Law Supremacy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Many celebrate international law as a way to compel states to protect human rights. Often it serves this\u00a0role. But sometimes it has the reverse effect: states use international agreements to circumvent individual\u00a0rights in domestic law. For example, the United States reportedly relied on Italy\u2019s consent to render a\u00a0terrorist suspect from the streets of Milan into secret detention. Pakistan seems to have authorized U.S.\u00a0lethal strikes against Al Qaeda members without regard to rights protections in Pakistani law.<\/p>\n<p>This Article uses the under-examined phenomenon of international consent to the use of force to explore the\u00a0larger question of how states use international law to circumvent individual rights. International law\u00a0facilitates these rights violations by embracing a principle termed \u201csupremacy.\u201d Supremacy requires a state\u00a0to prioritize its international obligations over its domestic laws. This means that a state may rely on\u00a0another state\u2019s consent to an agreement without asking whether that consent violates the rights of individuals\u00a0in the consenting state.<\/p>\n<p>To minimize this manipulation of international law, the Article proposes that states receiving consent to\u00a0use force bear a \u201cduty to inquire\u201d to ensure that the state consenting to the use of force is acting in a\u00a0manner consistent with its domestic laws. This solution challenges international law\u2019s traditional approach\u00a0to supremacy. The Article shows why a more functional approach to supremacy for international\u00a0agreements that operate at the intersection of national security and individual rights will advance the\u00a0goals of international and domestic law more effectively.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/84\/2013\/03\/HLI101.pdf\">Read full post (PDF)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Many celebrate international law as a way to compel states to protect human rights. Often it serves this\u00a0role. But sometimes [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6276,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[187,4,42,189,188],"class_list":["post-6274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-print-archives","tag-consent-to-use-of-force","tag-featured","tag-human-rights","tag-supremacy","tag-terrorism"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/84\/2013\/03\/file0001718022007.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZu3S-1Dc","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6274","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6274\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6276"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}