what could be an interesting thread. M-A and Igel have added French and German law to the mix. Anyone else is certainly welcome.

I have to read both posts (M-A and Igel) more carefully and compare them and US law. Some homework to do.

The points by Igel (numbered by me), I'll address now:

[1] To which jmm99 answered with a description of US constitutional law.

I realize that the US constitution is superior to international law. And that the US goverment is forbidden by the constitution to enact international treaties which violate the US constitution. [2] But I don't understand how the US consitution prohibits the USA to follow specific articles of the existing geneva treaty. [3] In my limited view of the US consitution and the geneva treaty there arn't any conflicts between those two. [4] In that respect a violation of the geneva treaty by the USA (not saying that it has occured) is not obligatory because of the US constitution but a voluntary decision of the US goverment.

[5] So isn't the real question: Has the USA violated the Geneva Treaty?
Answers:

1. I started off with US Con Law because that is the basic framework on which US incorporation of international law rests. Igel's understanding of the supremacy of the US Constitution is correct. The approach is perhaps somewhat closer to German than French law (as posted by M-A and Igel); but it is different from both. To practice Comparative Law, which is exactly what we are doing here, we have to understand the simularities and differences between our respective basic constitutional systems and their relationship to international law. To put it simply, we have to shoot the 25m, 50m and 100m targets before taking on the 200m and 500m targets.

2. To my knowledge (off the tip of my skull), the Supreme Court has never found a US Treaty (presented by the President and ratified by the Senate) to be unconstitutional. It has found executive agreements (of both types, IIRC) to be unconstitutional. Someone (JTF or Ken, my guardian angels ?) please correct me, if I am wrong. As to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their constitutionality is not questioned (although they were ratified with some minor limiting reservations; and since SCOTUS does interpret the law, the US interpretations may be different from the views in other countries). Be very much aware, that the US has not ratified Additional Protocals I and II to the 1949 GCs (mainly because of AP I). Since I made no claim that "US consitution prohibits the USA to follow specific articles of the existing geneva treaty", I don't know where that comes from.

3. I see no constitutional conflict either as to Hague or to the 1949 GCs (subject to all ratifying reservations and also subsequent interpretations, which may differ from those in other countries). I don't have a specific example in mind (we may get there); but let us say the German or French interpretaton of a specific GC article is "A" and the US interpretation is "not-A". The interpretation "A" could offend the US Constitution, whereas "not-A" would not offend. Both interpretations may in fact be reasonable. Law is not an exact science and reasonable people may differ in both inferences and interpretations.

4. Agreed that, if the US government (as an official national policy, as opposed to an abrogating statute duly enacted by Congress) adopted a policy (presumably through some executive order or administrative regulation and rule), which policy was contrary to a provision of the 1949 GCs as ratified and as subsequently interpreted and applied, that rogue policy, if not found to be unconstitutional or in violation of statute or of the treaty itself, would constitute a breach by the US (as a nation) of that 1949 GC provision. Please read my first sentence very carefully - it has some caveats. We then would have to consider whether it was a "grave breach" and what remedies are available. We are into the 200m and 500m range targets. Be patient.

5. In due course, we should look at how everyone in the World has accepted and applied the GCs (or not accepted or not applied them), and how everyone in the World has in some way breached them. That discussion would probably extend beyond my lifetime; but, in any event, discussion of GC breaches requires an exact fact situation and is not so simply answered as the question is put: "has such or such nation or non-nation violated the GCs ?"