World Peace

What does the United States look like after embracing the Constitution by relying on the strong established legal precedent and IL along with IHL?

GoogleAI Mode: “A United States that embraces its Constitution by relying on strong, established legal precedent (implying stare decisis is powerful and binding) alongside International Law (IL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) would likely look very similar to its current form, but with subtle yet significant shifts in how the Executive Branch operates during conflicts.

The Foundation of Precedent

Relying on “strong established legal precedent” suggests a legal system that values continuity and the evolution of law through judicial interpretation over time (a “living constitutionalism” approach), rather than a strict, static originalism.

Established Rights Remain: Landmark civil rights cases, privacy rights, and the broad application of the Fourteenth Amendment would remain intact and fundamentally shape society. The legal landscape would not suddenly revert to 18th-century norms.

The Power of the Administrative State: The vast federal bureaucracy and regulatory framework (e.g., environmental protections, food safety standards, financial regulations) would continue to function, grounded in decades of precedent upholding Congress’s power to delegate authority.

The Integration of International Law (IL and IHL)

The explicit reliance on IL and IHL would primarily impact the conduct of foreign policy, national security, and military actions.

Treaties as Binding Domestic Law: There would be an unequivocal legal consensus that ratified treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land,” binding on all levels of government and all branches. Courts would consistently strike down state or federal actions that contradict ratified international agreements.

Judicially Enforceable IHL: The rules of IHL (e.g., Geneva Conventions) would be treated as binding law that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to enforce domestically. This would provide strong legal restraints on the executive branch during conflicts:

No “Enhanced Interrogation”: Practices like waterboarding or prolonged solitary confinement would be clearly and unquestionably illegal under both U.S. domestic law and IHL, with clear avenues for prosecution within U.S. courts.

Clear Detention Standards: Rulings regarding detention of enemy combatants would strictly adhere to IHL standards, ensuring consistent access to legal review and humane treatment as defined by international conventions.

Civilian Protections: Military targeting decisions would be held to stringent IHL standards regarding proportionality and the distinction between combatants and civilians, with judicial oversight available for challenges.

Stronger Separation of Powers: The judiciary would likely play a more robust role in reviewing executive branch claims of inherent national security powers, ensuring all actions conform to both domestic constitutional precedent and international legal obligations.

Summary

This hypothetical United States would look very much like the contemporary U.S. in terms of domestic civil rights and federal power. However, it would be a nation where the executive branch’s war-making and intelligence activities are much more tightly constrained by legally binding international norms and robust domestic judicial oversight.

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What are examples of US policy that might change with strict adherence to international law?

GoogleAI Mode: “Strict adherence to international law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) would likely require changes in U.S. policy, particularly in the areas of national security operations, immigration, treaty ratification, and the use of certain weapons. 

Military and National Security Policy Changes

Detention and Interrogation: The indefinite detention of individuals without trial, as seen at Guantanamo Bay, would likely cease, and all detainees would be subject to strict IHL standards regarding humane treatment, trial, or release. Practices like “enhanced interrogation techniques” (widely considered torture) would be unequivocally illegal with clear avenues for prosecution.

Targeted Killings and Drone Strikes: Policies governing the use of force outside of active battlefields, such as targeted killings via drone strikes, would be held to stringent IHL standards of distinction and proportionality, requiring robust judicial oversight and transparent accountability mechanisms.

Use of Prohibited Weapons: The U.S. would likely need to ratify and adhere to international conventions banning certain weapons, such as anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions, and stop their production and deployment.

Sanctions on International Bodies: The U.S. would cease policies of sanctioning or undermining international judicial bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigating actions of U.S. or allied personnel. 

Immigration and Asylum Policy Changes

Due Process for Asylum Seekers: Policies that impose broad bars on asylum eligibility or conduct mass deportations without individual due process hearings would likely change to align with international human rights and refugee law protections.

Non-Discrimination in Entry: Travel bans or restrictions based solely on nationality or religion might be found in conflict with international norms against discrimination. 

Treaty Engagement and Domestic Law

Universal Treaty Adherence: The U.S. would need to ratify major international human rights treaties it currently has not, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and ensure their full implementation in domestic law.

Withdrawal from Agreements: The U.S. would be less likely to unilaterally withdraw from international agreements or institutions without clear legal and procedural compliance.

Dispute Resolution: The U.S. would likely need to accept third-party arbitration and the jurisdiction of international courts (like the International Court of Justice and the WTO dispute settlement body) in disputes, rather than blocking or ignoring unfavorable decisions. 

Transparency and Accountability

Civilian Harm: Stricter requirements for reporting, investigating, and providing reparations for civilian casualties resulting from U.S. military operations would be implemented, aligning with IHL principles. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

How might this affect specific civil liberties?

GoogleAI Mode: “Strict adherence to established legal precedent and international law (IL), including International Humanitarian Law (IHL), would strengthen many core U.S. civil liberties while potentially adding layers of oversight and accountability to government actions, particularly in national security and immigration contexts.

How Civil Liberties Might be Affected

Stronger Protections Against Cruel Treatment and Torture: Adherence to IHL and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would firmly cement the ban on torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in U.S. law and practice. Policies permitting “enhanced interrogation techniques” or indefinite detention without review would be unequivocally illegal, providing robust legal avenues for detainees to challenge their confinement and treatment in U.S. courts.

Enhanced Due Process in Immigration: Policies for asylum seekers and immigrants would be required to align strictly with international human rights and refugee law, which mandate due process and prohibit sending individuals to countries where they face persecution or torture (the principle of non-refoulement). Broad, non-individualized travel bans or mass deportations without individual hearings would likely violate these norms.

Greater Accountability in Military Action: Adherence to IHL would mean increased transparency and accountability regarding U.S. military operations, particularly drone strikes and targeted killings. There would be stricter requirements to investigate civilian harm and potentially provide reparations, reinforcing the right to life and minimizing arbitrary loss of life.

Clearer Rights for Minorities and Vulnerable Groups: Strict adherence to ratified treaties like the ICCPR would solidify explicit protections against sex discrimination and the rights of ethnic and linguistic minorities to use their own language, areas where the original U.S. Constitution is less explicit.

Limitations on the Death Penalty and Solitary Confinement: The U.S. might face pressure to align its practices with international norms that often restrict the use of the death penalty, especially for juveniles or those with mental disabilities, and limit prolonged solitary confinement due to concerns over cruel treatment.

Reinforced Freedom of Speech and Association (Cross-Border): The First Amendment’s protections might be interpreted in light of international standards that protect the exchange of ideas “regardless of frontiers.” This could strengthen the rights of U.S. persons to communicate with individuals and entities abroad without government interference, unless a clear national security exception is met.

Judicial Oversight of Executive Power: Overall, the primary effect would be increased judicial review and oversight of actions taken by the Executive Branch in the name of national security or foreign policy, ensuring that these actions are subject to both constitutional and international legal standards, thus providing a stronger check on potential overreach.”