The PLO Case: Terrorism, Statutory Interpretation, and Conflicting Obligations under Domestic and Public International Law

Authors

Richard Cummings

Abstract

This Article considers, in the broadest sense, the role of the federal courts in determining Congressional intent to violate U.S. treaty obligations under international law by enacting statutes in contravention of such treaties. The Article also analyzes the propriety and significance of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion concerning the international obligations of a member state under a piece of domestic legislation before that country's interpretation of the legislation. Specifically, it examines the decision in the PLO Mission case which found that Congress did not intend in the Anti-Terrorism Act to shut the PLO Mission to the United Nations in violation of United States international obligations. The impact of this decision on the "last in time" doctrine will also be addressed.

Recommended Citation

Richard Cummings, The PLO Case: Terrorism, Statutory Interpretation, and Conflicting Obligations under Domestic and Public International Law, 13 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 25 (1989).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol13/iss1/2