Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Unenforceable Agreements

At her June 17 press conference, Hillary Clinton was asked whether there were understandings or agreements between Israel and the Bush administration about settlement growth and whether she felt bound by them. Clinton responded as follows:

[I]n looking at the history of the Bush Administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the Administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility. Our former ambassador Dan Kurtzer has written an op-ed that appeared in the last few days that lays out our position on that.

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed today, Elliott Abrams — who was in a position of direct responsibility at the time — noted the strange qualifier Clinton used:

Mrs. Clinton also said there were no “enforceable” agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?

In the op-ed to which Clinton referred, Daniel Kurtzer employed a similar linguistic evasion. Kurtzer argued there was no “formal” understanding.

Was there an informal understanding? Was there an oral agreement? Was there a tacit understanding or a tacit agreement? Were there notes, memoranda, and other documents reflecting what was communicated and understood? Was there a course of action indicating agreement? Was there detrimental reliance? As Jennifer noted, even a first-year law student knows the definition of a deal.

But this is not simply a question about the past, because it raises questions about the ability of other nations to rely on future commitments that may be made by the U.S. government — or at least this one.  How are other nations to determine whether the Obama administration’s commitments will be “enforceable?” How formal will be formal enough for the administration to enforce them against itself, much less a successor administration?

And when the U.S. government later reneges on its commitments, understandings, and agreements, where should the other governments go to get their concessions back?


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.