UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND THE “LAST-IN-TIME RULE” CAN A SELF-EXECUTING TREATY WHICH CONFLICTS WITH AN EARLIER FEDERAL STATUTE SUPERSEDE THAT STATUTE?

Abstract

This paper talks about the “last-in-time rule” for the application of treaties in the United States. In 1829, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the "Foster v. Nielsen case" that a treaty would become "the law of the United States" and therefore be equivalent to the legislation of the legislature in U.S. courts. The treaty must not require any legislature. The assistance of the terms can be applied by itself. That is, in the case of a treaty that is automatically enforced, it is equivalent to the legislation of the federal legislature. The notion that “a treaty (at least a self-executing treaty) is equivalent to the statute of a federal legislature” is an important prerequisite for applying the last-in-time rule. Although there is no direct question of who is the priority between the treaty and domestic law, the court opinion of the case is also important for the resolution of this issue. The “later-in-time rule” also known as the "last-in-time rule", is a development of the U.S court in judicial practice. A rule that resolves conflicts between federal statutes and treaties. It refers to the fact that the treaty has the same status in the United States as federal law (mainly statute law) in accordance with the provisions of U.S. const.art.VI, when the treaty conflicts with federal law, it has a priority.