The United States Constitution stipulates the division of authority among the three branches of government, but there remain some grey areas concerning foreign policy issues, including nuclear strategy. This article focuses on the recent dispute over ABM Treaty reinterpretation, which prompted both legislative and executive branches to consider what the proper role of Congress should be in the formulation of nuclear strategy.
The origin of the reinterpretation issue was the Reagan administration's policy on SDI rather than in the content of the treaty itself, which had been singularly interpretated for 13 years. The ABM Treaty prohibits testing, development and deployment of a sea-, air-based or mobile land-based ABM system. It also provides for further consultation by the both parties on future systems. The Reagan administration pledged to observe these restrictions as it launched the SDI program, but due to later political developments, SDI proponents, especially those in the Department of Defense, tried to push the program beyond these restrictions. The easiest way of doing so was to give a new interpretation to the treaty to loosen the restrictions, rather than amending or abrogating the treaty itself.
Congress, so far permissive. of the SDI program, was provoked by this move of the administration. The congressional reaction was made both on the constitutional and on policy ground—the former concerned with the Senate's authority to advise and consent to treaties, while the latter concerned the preference over accelerating SDI program. In the Senate, the debate was quite heated and Senator Sam Nunn led the criticism against Judge Abraham Sofar's justifications based on his own studies. He and Senator Carl Levin also introduced an amendment which used the congressional power of the purse to induce the administration's compromise, by holding the SDI budget as the hostage. The House was less concerned about the constitutional issue, but put a similar condition on the SDI budget. The dispute ended with congressional reassertion of its constitutional authority as well as of its evaluation of the principles of the ABM Treaty.
Moreover, through the debate over ABM Treaty reinterpretation, one notable view was brought forward with regard to the congressional role in foreign policy making, including nuclear strategy: Congress is given the authority to advise and consent to treaties and the authority over the budget. It should go further to positively inter-relate these two roles with a broader perspective. In that way, both the executive and legislative branches can create policies which better serve American interest.
抄録全体を表示