Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Legal constraints on United States participation in peacekeeping activities

Legal constraints on United States participation in peacekeeping activities Notes � U.S. v. Curtis Wright Export Corp. 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). 2 There is an immense scholarly literature on the constitutional validity of the War Powers Resolution. Most scholars agree that section 1543, which requires the President to give Con- gress notice of the use of troops abroad is constitutional and section 1544(c), which gave the Congress unilateral power to require the withdrawal of troops in specific situations is unconstitutional. The controversy centers around whether section 1544(b), which is in the form of a statutory requirement that troops not be used in hostile situations for more than 60 days without Congressional authorization interferes with the President's commandcr-in-chief powers. 3 Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (D.C.Cir.1972). 4 The hroad grant of power to the President to negotiate such agreements found in United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942), has implicitly been limited by Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981). 5 Public Law 89-195, sec. 607; United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. 75, p. 424 at p. 441. 1. 6 'The Clinton Administration's Policy of Re- forming Multilateral Peace Operations,' p. 5. � Ihid. 8 Ibid., p.6-7. 9 Ibid., pp. 9-I 1. The hesitancy of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of International Peacekeeping Brill

Legal constraints on United States participation in peacekeeping activities

Journal of International Peacekeeping , Volume 2 (4): 4 – Jan 1, 1995
Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/legal-constraints-on-united-states-participation-in-peacekeeping-916tAYrI5l

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1875-4104
eISSN
1875-4112
DOI
10.1163/187541195X00397
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Notes � U.S. v. Curtis Wright Export Corp. 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). 2 There is an immense scholarly literature on the constitutional validity of the War Powers Resolution. Most scholars agree that section 1543, which requires the President to give Con- gress notice of the use of troops abroad is constitutional and section 1544(c), which gave the Congress unilateral power to require the withdrawal of troops in specific situations is unconstitutional. The controversy centers around whether section 1544(b), which is in the form of a statutory requirement that troops not be used in hostile situations for more than 60 days without Congressional authorization interferes with the President's commandcr-in-chief powers. 3 Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (D.C.Cir.1972). 4 The hroad grant of power to the President to negotiate such agreements found in United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942), has implicitly been limited by Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981). 5 Public Law 89-195, sec. 607; United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. 75, p. 424 at p. 441. 1. 6 'The Clinton Administration's Policy of Re- forming Multilateral Peace Operations,' p. 5. � Ihid. 8 Ibid., p.6-7. 9 Ibid., pp. 9-I 1. The hesitancy of

Journal

Journal of International Peacekeeping – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.