Ask the Scholar

Page 21 of 61
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 21

OCR

Article 43 that the agreement or agreements to be concluded by Members with the Security Council shall be "subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes". The word "ratification" is, of course, here used in its strict sense as meaning the formal action whereby a state evidences its acceptance of an inter- national treaty or agreement. The Charter requirement of ratification "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes" leaves it to each state to decide in its own case what its applicable constitutional processes are, but by requiring that assent be manifested by the ceremonious act of ratification the Charter requires that, in each state, there be done previously whatever must be done under that state's constitutional practices before ratification can be performed. In the case of the United States, ratification is by the President. There seems to have been general agreement that, under our "constitutional practices", the President could not ratify the agreements here in question until he had been authorized to do so. There was, however, disagreement as to what kind of authorization our "consti- tutional processes" called for. Some thought that the advice and consent of the Senate was required, as for a treaty. Others thought that the rati- fication should be on the authority of both Houses expressed by joint resolution or bill, as in the case, for example, of our adherence to the constitution of the International Labor Organization in 1934, 22 U.S.C. 271, and our acceptance of the amendment of its constitution in 1948, P. L. 843, 62 Stat. 1151. This difference of view was resolved by section 6 in favor of authorization by congressional approval. Consequently, the provision in section 6 to that effect was not an independent assertion of its authority by the Congress as against the President, but merely a decision by the - 21 -

Page data

Page
21
Source index
0
Type
photo
Media ID
45b4a38c8ed60888
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
159441265
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data
{
    "id": "159441265",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441265",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Report, Power of the President to Send Troops Abroad",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441265",
    "collections": [
        "President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
        "General Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876515/876515-05-01.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876515/876515-05-01.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876515/876515-05-01.jpg",
    "imageCount": 61,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity
{
    "localId": "159441265",
    "label": "Report, Power of the President to Send Troops Abroad",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441265"
}
Document source metadata
{
    "id": "159441265",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441265",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Report, Power of the President to Send Troops Abroad",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441265",
    "collections": [
        "President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
        "General Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876515/876515-05-01.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876515/876515-05-01.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876515/876515-05-01.jpg",
    "imageCount": 61,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441265",
    "naId": 159441265,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
    "seq": 21,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876515/876515-05-21.jpg",
    "mediaId": "45b4a38c8ed60888",
    "ocrText": "Article 43 that the agreement or agreements to be concluded by Members\nwith the Security Council shall be \"subject to ratification by the signatory\nstates in accordance with their respective constitutional processes\". The\nword \"ratification\" is, of course, here used in its strict sense as meaning\nthe formal action whereby a state evidences its acceptance of an inter-\nnational treaty or agreement. The Charter requirement of ratification\n\"in accordance with their respective constitutional processes\" leaves it to\neach state to decide in its own case what its applicable constitutional\nprocesses are, but by requiring that assent be manifested by the ceremonious\nact of ratification the Charter requires that, in each state, there be done\npreviously whatever must be done under that state's constitutional practices\nbefore ratification can be performed. In the case of the United States,\nratification is by the President. There seems to have been general agreement\nthat, under our \"constitutional practices\", the President could not ratify\nthe agreements here in question until he had been authorized to do so.\nThere\nwas, however, disagreement as to what kind of authorization our \"consti-\ntutional processes\" called for. Some thought that the advice and consent\nof the Senate was required, as for a treaty. Others thought that the rati-\nfication should be on the authority of both Houses expressed by joint\nresolution or bill, as in the case, for example, of our adherence to the\nconstitution of the International Labor Organization in 1934, 22 U.S.C. 271,\nand our acceptance of the amendment of its constitution in 1948, P. L. 843,\n62 Stat. 1151. This difference of view was resolved by section 6 in favor\nof authorization by congressional approval. Consequently, the provision in\nsection 6 to that effect was not an independent assertion of its authority\nby the Congress as against the President, but merely a decision by the\n- 21 -"
}