The Abiding Exceptionalism of Foreign Relations Doctrine
In their article The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law, Professors Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth argue that “[foreign affairs] exceptionalism . . . is now exceptional,” and that this is a good thing. I agree with much of the authors’ normative argument for “normalization” of foreign affairs doctrine (as they define the term). But the authors overstate the extent to which such normalization has already occurred. There have indeed been some recent Supreme Court decisions that seem to lack the exceptional deference to the Executive that had characterized judicial decision-making in the foreign affairs area in previous years. But foreign affairs doctrine remains resolutely exceptionalist in some areas beyond those identified by the authors as reflecting the “unfinished business” of normalization. When these additional manifestations of exceptionalism are added to the ones the authors have identified, the claim that exceptionalism is now exceptional seems overstated.Part I of this response discusses the authors’ definition of exceptionalism and normalization, which the authors describe as “an independent contribution” of the article, “regardless of whether one agrees with [its] broader normalization thesis.” As noted, their definition collapses the question of normalization with the proper interpretation of the Constitution.Part II challenges the authors’ characterization of some doctrines or decisions as exceptionalist. The authors cite Missouri v. Holland as an example of foreign relations exceptionalism. But the holding of Missouri v. Holland is supported by the constitutional text and is consistent with original intent and the case law preceding the decision.Part III focuses on the judicial enforcement of treaties. As I have written at some length in these pages, the Supremacy Clause establishes that treaties are to be enforceable in the courts in the same circumstances as statutes. Yet the courts have engrafted onto the Supremacy Clause a distinction between self-executing treaties and non-self-executing treaties, with only the latter being judicially enforceable.
Treaties and Public Lawmaking: A Textual and Structural Defense of Non-Self-Execution
This article advances textual and structural constitutional arguments in defense of the doctrine of non-self-executing treaties. Requiring congressional implementation of treaties that regulate matters within Congress's Article I, Section 8 powers respects the Constitution's basic separation of the legislative and executive powers. It also ensures that treaties, which are asserted to be free from the Constitution's federalism and the separation of powers limitations, will not assume an unbounded legislative power, and it promotes the Constitution's principle that domestic legislation be made by democratic processes. The paper criticizes the position that the Supremacy Clause's text requires automatic judicial enforcement of treaties as too simple and inconsistent with practice both in the treaty area and in the enforcement of federal statutory and constitutional provisions. The paper also replies to responses to Globalism and the Constitution.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.