Who has the power to settledisputes involving the United States?
915725
Actually, there is not anyone or anybody, that has binding power over the U.S., but it is on a voluntary basis that the U.S. could bring the dispute to the United Nations, or to the International Court in Hague, and then the U. S. could agree to be bound under whatever was decided.\n\n For example, for action against Iraq, Bush wanted to just go ahead and act against Iraq; but some people in his administration asked that Bush go through the United Nations so, that it has some type of world policy platform. BUT, the U.S. is not under any obligation to obey the United Nations at all. It is a voluntary agreement.
478985
The United States must abide by laws that govern such things as international trade and human rights.  The United States, as is with every other nation, is not required to abide by the edicts passed by the United Nations.  \n\nIf they elect not to abide by a law that it feels is unfair or against the United States' interests they can refuse to uphold that law.  The consequences could include cooled relationships with other countries, embargos and even U N sanctioned war.
193611
Do you really think the US beaurocrats and politicians would allow that to happen?  We aren't a super power because we sit back and twiddle our thumbs while others beat us out on something.  We'd find some reason to sanction them long before they surpassed us.
448322
I would stop trying by different ways 2 establish USA as the only power in the world by making treaties with other countries .id stop betraying other countries askin others to stop warfare but continuing secret weaponery making. I would lend a helping hand to countries for imports n exports\nTHUS TRYING TO MAKE A PEACEFUL,AND A BETTER PLACE 2 LIVE IN.\n(NOTE:im not tryin 2 point out bush)
745342
pause time.\nu can do the rest of the powers with just that power
346404
It depends on the context of the dispute, domestic or foreign. The US government is legally obligated to recognize authority in this order:\n1. US. Constitution\n2. International treaty and convention (international law)\n3. US Federal law. \n\nThe Constitution comes first in order to maintain the autonomous sovereignty of the country. International treaty must be recognized second in legitimizing external entities. Federal law comes third (subsuming state, local, and municipal law) in issues of domestic governance. \n\nThis order explains why the US cannot make laws that discriminate against foreign producers (trade barriers/tariffs) because international law has forbidden it and enforces the law through the World Trade Organization. However, this also explains why international law does not take precedence over U.S. Constitutional law. The U.S. would not recognize a law passed by the U.N. that infringed upon our rights to freedom of speech, religion, etc. \n\nThus, the highest authority would depend on the facet of legality from which the dispute arose.
694838
The U.S has a constitutional government and operates as a representative democracy through a congressional system under a set of powers specified by its Constitution.\n\nCanada is a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada as head of state, and a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government and strong democratic traditions.
587238
Well it would depend on the Constitution of the particular country.  But as an example the United States and Great Britain both have bi-cameral legistative systems.
381162
First, understand the Monroe Doctrine, formulated by President Monroe: that the US is the dominant power in the Americas, and that European powers should not interfere in and dominate the countries in North and South America.\n\nThe Roosevelt Collary is that the US would become a police power in the region, and that the US *would* interfere. It's related to the statement about speaking softly and carrying a big stick.\n\nIt was replaced by FDR, with the Good Neighbor Policy, in 1934.
565879
Check with US embassy.
301618
run government under u.s.a
436172
No.\n\nThe US can do it to itself.
670300
The US needs to take care of it's own interests.  If we don't, we are no longer our own nation.
609824
Certainly you can, they also are responsible for:\n\nCorona\nDos Equis\nTecate\nTequila\nIllegal Immigrants\nBad border towns\namongst other things.\n\nBut how can you take the USA serious after they created:\n\nParis Hilton\nCher\nBrittany Spears\nAmerican Idol\nthe Edsel\nJoan Rivers\nYahoo Answers\nSnoopy\n\nTake your choice good beers and tequila or bad pop stars???
647330
information is for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who wish to bring a spouse to live permanently in the U.S.
200769
I don't believe that the USA has the right to involve in other countries politics. It might be done because it is helpfull for the country (oil in iraq?). But I believe that bigger organisation should do it if we're talking about a dictatorship or corruption.
787979
Pose your question to the US Department of state, or to your local Embassy.