Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

BOND v. UNITED STATES
 

Opinion of the Court 

III
 
Section  229  exists  to  implement  the  Convention,  so  we
begin  with  that  international  agreement.    As  explained,
the  Convention’s  drafters  intended  for  it  to  be  a  compre-
hensive  ban  on  chemical  weapons.    But  even  with  its 
broadly  worded  definitions,  we  have  doubts  that  a  treaty 
about  chemical  weapons  has  anything  to  do  with  Bond’s
conduct.  The Convention, a product of years of worldwide
study,  analysis,  and  multinational  negotiation,  arose  in
response to war crimes and acts of terrorism.  See Kenyon
&  Feakes  6.    There  is  no  reason  to  think  the  sovereign 
nations  that  ratified  the  Convention  were  interested  in 
anything like Bond’s common law assault.

Even if the treaty does reach that far, nothing prevents
Congress  from  implementing  the  Convention  in  the  same
manner  it  legislates  with  respect  to  innumerable  other 
matters—observing  the  Constitution’s  division  of  respon-
sibility between sovereigns and leaving the prosecution of
purely  local  crimes  to  the  States.    The  Convention,  after 
all,  is  agnostic  between  enforcement  at  the  state  versus
federal level: It provides that “[e]ach State Party shall, in 
accordance  with  its  constitutional  processes,  adopt  the 
necessary  measures  to  implement  its  obligations  under 
this  Convention.”  Art. VII(1),  1974  U.  N.  T.  S.  331  (em-
phasis added); see also Tabassi, National Implementation:
Article  VII,  in  Kenyon  &  Feakes  205,  207  (“Since  the 
creation  of  national  law,  the  enforcement  of  it  and  the 
structure and administration of government are all sover-
eign acts reserved exclusively for [State Parties], it is not
surprising that the Convention is so vague on the critical 
matter of national implementation.”).

Fortunately,  we  have  no  need  to  interpret  the  scope  of 
the  Convention  in  this  case.  Bond  was  prosecuted  under
section  229,  and  the  statute—unlike  the  Convention— 
must  be  read  consistent  with  principles  of  federalism 
inherent in our constitutional structure.