Published on March 12, 2015 | by LawNews
Prof. Julian Ku Cited in ABA Journal and Slate on Impending Amanda Knox Ruling
Did GOP authors of Iran letter get international law wrong?
By Debra Cassens Weiss
March 11, 2015
• Writing at Opinio Juris, Hofstra University law professor Julian Ku says the letter is accurate on the law, but it may have conceded more than the writers intended. “There is still a plausible constitutional argument out there,” Ku says, “that [the] president must submit the Iran nuke agreement to either the Senate (as a treaty) or to Congress as a whole. The letter all but concedes that the president can indeed conclude a sole executive agreement with Iran on this matter. Doesn’t this undercut the Senators’ argument that they should, indeed, must have their say on this deal?”
The Republicans’ Latest Iran Ploy Is Brazen, Borderline Unconstitutional, and Totally Predictable
By Joshua Keating
March 9, 2015
It’s not exactly news that congressional Republicans are opposed to the deal, and Iranian officials—a striking number of whom were educated in the U.S.—probably don’t need a Schoolhouse Rock lesson in the separation of powers. Iranian negotiators seem to be factoring the potential for congressional action into their position. But the letter is still a fairly blatant attempt to undermine the White House’s credibility in the negotiations. As international law professor Julian Ku notes, the letter seems carefully crafted by Cotton, a constitutional lawyer himself, to avoid actually stating opposition on the deal, which would arguably be illegal interference in ongoing negotiations. But it’s hard to see a senator writing to a foreign government to advocate against a deal still under negotiation as anything other than a brazen and unprecedented attempt to subvert the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy and negotiate treaties.