UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
BERTRAM
SACKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICE OF
FOREIGN ASSETS
CONTROL,
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO.
C04-108JLR
(This is
page 7 of the federal judge’s decision on international law and U.S. sanctions
on Iraq.
The full ruling is at
www.concernforiraq.org/ofac/JudgeRobartDecision22Oct04.pdf.
The legal case citations have been
moved to footnotes to make the text more readable.)
The court
finds that the international law upon which Plaintiff relies is not binding on
the United States. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is
not self-executing, and the United States Senate has declined to ratify it.[1] The same is true of the Geneva Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.[2]
Although the United States has ratified part of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it also provided that the
Convention creates no “substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by
any party in any proceeding.”[3]
Finally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is aspirational, not
binding, and is not recognized as law in the United States.[4]
Customary
international law also provides no defense for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues
that even if the international law he cites has not been ratified or enacted in
the United States, customary international law embodying the same principles is
controlling. Even if the court accepts the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the
relevant customary international law, it cannot overlook the executive and
legislative acts that expressly address sanctions against Iraq. Customary
international law is not binding where there is a controlling legislative or executive
act addressing the same subject. [5]International
law does not provide Plaintiff with a legally cognizable claim against the
challenged regulations.