The Supreme Court In Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 598-99, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884), expressly differentiates between a treaty granting rights to citizens from a treaty that does not do so. In the former, rights of individuals are to be enforced in courts just as they would be under a statute. See id. at 599. In the latter, enforcement is reliant on the "interest and the honor of the governments which are parties to it," and judicial courts cannot give redress. Id. at 598. In Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798 (1884), the United States Supreme Court discussed the role treaties hold in our system of laws. A treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens of or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country. . . . The constitution of the United States places such provisions as these in the same category as other laws of congress by its declarations that 'this constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.' A treaty, then, is a law of the land as an act of congress is, whenever its provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizen or subject may be determined. And when such rights are of a nature to be enforced in a court of justice, that court resorts to the treaty for a rule of decision for the case before it as it would to a statute. Edye, 112 U.S. at 598-99.