Treaty Interpretation addresses two important constitutional questions, whether the United States should follow the normal international legal standard in treaty interpretation rooted in the intent of the treaty parties or a new "dual'" standard of interpretation rooted in the intent of the Senate, and whether the Senate ever has constitutional authority to attach "domestic conditions" to treaties. This book has emerged from the work of the author as a consultant to the Arms Control Agency in preparing a detailed study on the respective views of Judge Sofaer and Senator Nunn in the 1980s "broad-narrow" debate as to the correct interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union. This debate and the subsequent revisions to the Re-statement (Third International Conference) demonstrate the effect that one individual can have on the U.S. foreign policy. A glimpse of constitutional issues on treaty interpretations Professor Moore wrote from a personal perspective, giving your students a chance to feel the very human tension of one of the greatest debates of our time. With Treaty Interpretation, you will let your students see the people who are behind today's foreign policy, face-to-face. This text illustrates a real world example of constitutional theory in practice. The separation of powers, as envisioned by our constitutional framers, is a constant struggle. A living example of the struggle to preserve a balance is demonstrated in this text as the distribution of power to interpret and apply international agreements. Describes the corpus of international agreements The author carefully traces these impacts, differentiates them, and surfaces the nearly invisible, but profoundly important, constitutional issues in this "great debate." A must-have for those interested in constitutional treaty laws This book is a must for those concerned with treaty issues and constitutional law. This is an important reading for basic international law courses. About the Author John Norton Moore is one of the best-known international lawyers in the world. His writings on international law and constitutional dimensions of foreign policy have been read literally around the world. Among seven presidential appointments, most recently Professor Moore served for two terms as the Senate-Confirmed Chairman of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace. He has written and testified extensively on the constitutional issues and the conduct of United States foreign policy. He has also testified at Senate hearings on executive agreements and treaty terminations.

While congressional hearings on the Iran-Contra dealings have spotlighted one case of conflict between perceived policy imperatives and the law, another has gone relatively unnoticed. Of no less importance in political, international diplomatic, and constitutional terms is the Reagan administration's attempt to reinterpret the Antiballistic Missile Treaty to allow more leeway for its Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). This reinterpretation poses a comparaable issue of policy versus the law. Signed and ratified in 1972, the ABM Treaty bans the development and testing, as well as deployment, of space-based and other mobile ABM systems or essential components. The administration, citing the treaty itself and the record of its negotiation, has claimed that the ban does not apply to systems based on new technologies.