Further Reactions on Bond v. United States
On the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Bond v. United States, at Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin: Bond v. United States and the Treaty Power; and Nick Rosenkranz: Treaties Can Create Domestic Law of Their Own Force, But It Does Not Follow That Treaties Can Increase The Legislative Power of Congress.
And at Opinio Juris, Julian Ku: Will Bond v. United States Matter?
... [A] favorable decision for the petitioners in Bond could still have a practical impact by reviving that almost extinct constitutional creature: the self-executing treaty. The President and Senate, at least in the past few decades, have very rarely approved self-executing treaties outside of a few subject matter areas (like taxes, extradition, and investment). Big important treaties, such as human rights treaties, have generally been approved on the condition they are non-self-executing. (Go ahead, name the most important self-executing treaty of the past thirty years. That Tax Convention with Chile?) Or they are approved like most trade agreements via the route of the congressional-executive agreement.
So Bond might actually result in giving the President and the Senate the incentive to go the "self-execution" route. As a matter of politics, this might be difficult in today’s Senate, but I think future treaty supporters might think it would be safer to go the self-execution route to avoid future Bond-like challenges to their treaties.