Statement of Ralph G. Steinhardt,Professor of Law,before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary,U.S. House of Representatives

Conclusion The Alvarez-Machain decision demonstrates that there is no simple division between international law, on the one hand, and domestic or constitutional law, on the other. It is a domestic matter that U.S. citizens are suddenly vulnerable to reciprocal exercises of power by foreign states. It is a domestic matter if the decision compromises the international cooperation on which the drug war depends. It will certainly be no consolation to those whose lives depend on winning that war that the case involved a single, relatively obscure treaty with a single foreign country. It is a constitutional matter if the Court will no longer exercise independent judgment in the interpretation of the supreme law of the land or will view as optional agreements the rest of the world considers comprehensive and binding.And as we reflect on the importance of treaties in such areas as trade or-especially after President Yeltsin's visit last week-arms reduction, it becomes clear that treaties-though international in origin-are usually domestic in their impact. The Supreme Court's disposition in Alvarez-Machain seems radically at odds with this nation's long-term, sophisticated self-interest in assuring the domestic sanctity of international agreements.This statement was presented in a slightly altered form to the Subcommittee on June 22, 1992. Professor Steinhardt is Associate Director of the International and Comparative Law Program at the National Law Center, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; B.A., Bowdoin College 1976; J.D., Harvard University 1980.Professor Steinhardt appeared with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California in its representation of Dr. Alvarez-Machain in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in the Supreme Court of the United States.     

Has modernity killed objectivity?

Among his writings are Searching for Safety; Risk and Culture; Speaking Truth to Power;and The Beleaguered Presidency.     

An Analysis of the Effects of Subjective and Objective Instruction Forms on Mock-Juries' Murder/Manslaughter Distinctions

Defendants' emotions at the time of their crimes may potentially serve as mitigating circumstances in murder/manslaughter cases. The present study examined whether differences between two forms of instructions given juries in such cases affected mock-juries' murder/manslaughter distinctions. Jurors' reasons for their verdicts and definitions of murder and manslaughter were also compared. In addition, three factors found to be predictive of murder/manslaughter distinctions in previous research were evaluated. It was found that, though instruction forms affected jurors' stated reasons for their verdicts and their definitions of murder and manslaughter, they did not significantly affect murder/manslaughter distinctions. Defendants were most likely to be convicted of murder if they had a history of violence with the victim and dwelt upon their emotions. We suggest jurors likely construe instructions given them to fit their a priori understandings of murder, manslaughter, and the potentially mitigating role of defendants' emotions.     

Incorporating Equity into International Water Agreements

River basins have provided resources for the advancement of human civilization from the earliest historic times. With river basin development has also come conflict, particularly in the past century. In response, the international community has developed generalized, global principles for the equitable allocation of water resources between nation-states, most notably through the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. These principles, however, have rarely been explicitly put into practice. To resolve or avert conflict in the world's 261 international river basins, riparian nations have instead relied upon treaties that incorporate basin-specific needs and conditions and define equity at the most local level. An examination of the progression of geographic thought on river basin development reveals a spatial focus that has not evolved beyond the basin and landscape scales. The absence of theoretical underpinnings for global frameworks may explain why riparian nations have not widely adopted general principles for the equitable allocation of water resources in actual treaty practice.