ReadArticle VI of the U.S. Constitution provides, in part,"...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..."This clause, often referred to as the Supremacy Clause, demonstrates that treaties are elevated to a status over that of state laws. While not done as clearly, courts have also given executive agreements that same elevated status. However, while treaties and executive agreements are supreme over state law, they are not necessarily equal to one another. Moreover, not all treaties are enforceable in domestic courts.How and where treaties are enforceable has been a fluid concept in America's history, and it remains so to this day. The article linked below examines the history of the enforcement of treaties in U.S. courts and where we stand today on the issue. The article also makes suggestions of how to better allow for direct enforcement of treaties.Read the article critically, gauging your response to its conclusions.Yale's International Law at Home (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. WriteBased on the journal article, consider the following questions:What factors are involved in determining whether an international treaty is "binding" or enforceable in U.S. courts? Is this list sufficient? Should other factors be involved? If so, what and why?What are a litigant's options if the treaty is not enforceable domestically? Do you think "indirect enforcement" is truly a viable option?Should the process make access to domestic courts for enforcement, or private rights of action, more or less difficult? What reasoning supports your position?

Hello, in the attachment the case study ( Fiji vs. FIJI), and the text book, ((Establishing Trust and Building a Relationship, page125) and (Power, Persuasion, and Ethics page 153)1. Please read textbook chapters on "Establishing Trust and Building a Relationship" and "Power, Persuasion, and Ethics". 2. Read the case Fiji vs. FIJI Negotiating Over Water.3. Re-read the case and answer the following 4 questions. (1) In the negotiations between FIJI Water and the Fiji government over the proposed tax increase on water extraction, which party is in a stronger position? Why?(2) In what ways can each party leverage power to force a deal on favorable terms? Provide examples of power-based moves that each party could employ.(3) FIJI Water relies on the Fijian government to access Fijian Water. How can the company build a trusting relationship with a government that has been unstable and is likely to continue being unstable?(4) Suppose that just after the tax increase on water extraction was announced, you were hired to provide professional negotiation advice. What advice would you give to FIJI water? What advice would you give to Fijian government?