Treaty's Limit

When the New York State Power Authority applied last fall for permission to build a long-delayed $600 million hydroelectric complex near Niagara Falls, the Federal Power Commission refused to consider the application, claimed that it had no jurisdiction. Reason: the U.S. Senate, in ratifying the 1950 U.S.-Canadian treaty on Niagara River water development rights, had tacked on a "reservation" rider forbidding any project-building not "specifically authorized by Act of Congress."

The FPC stand raised a constitutional question: Under the U.S. three-branch system of government, can the U.S. Senate impose domestic conditions on its consent to international agreements negotiated by the executive branch?

Last week in Washington a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled, 2-1, that FPC, not the U.S. Congress, was the proper agency to authorize (or turn down) the New York State power project. Moreover, the majority held, the Senate's reservation 1) had no business being in an international treaty since it applied only to domestic matters, 2) was simply an "expression of the Senate's desires"--not part of the treaty or a law of the land.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.