The Role of International Law in United States Death Penalty Cases

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-387
Author(s):  
Sandra Babcock
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign Governments

The United States has repeatedly failed to notify detained foreign nationals of their rights to consular notification and access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In capital cases, US non-compliance with this ratified Treaty has led to litigation by foreign governments and individual lawyers in domestic courts and international tribunals. While these efforts have had mixed results in individual cases, litigation by Mexico, Germany and other actors has led to increased compliance with Article 36, and a growing recognition of the significance of US treaty obligations.

Immigration, Foreign Nationals, and the U.S. Death Penalty

2020 ◽  
pp. 184-195
Author(s):  
Larry Nackerud ◽  
John R. Barner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

This chapter focuses on the interplay between the policy arenas of immigration and the death penalty in the United States. Central to this interplay is the recognition of foreign national rights on U.S. soil—even when individuals stand accused of committing a capital crime such as murder. The authors provide a sociohistorical background of U.S. immigration policy. Specifically, they address the United Nations, the role of the United States in its development, and its promulgated policies protecting human rights; the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, including Article 36; and Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. The chapter focuses on Mexican nationals, who represent 13 of 34 foreign nationals executed in the United States since 1976, despite internationally recognized protections. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the failure of the United States to comply is a clear violation of international human and civil rights standards.

International Law and the Death Penalty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra L. Babcock
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
International Law ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Time Section ◽  
Over Time

Section I of this chapter examines the potential of international law to promote abolition of the death penalty and the challenges that prevent the full realization of that potential. Section II provides a brief overview of how international norms relating to the application of the death penalty have evolved over time. Section III provides three examples of how their impact has been limited in practice, focusing on the application of the death penalty to individuals with mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities, as well as the failure of the United States to comply with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Finally, Section IV suggests a number of prescriptive measures to address these limitations. It describes an innovative project in Malawi to obtain the resentencing of prisoners condemned to death and discusses potential revisions to the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty.

International and Foreign Law in Domestic Constitutional Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 373-392
Author(s):  
Muna Ndulo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
World Wide ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Domestic Courts

This chapter illustrates the role of international and foreign law in domestic constitutional law. Through the case analysis of South Africa (a post conflict state) and the United States (often seen as a country that is not too friendly to international and foreign legal systems), it discusses the role of international and foreign law in reconciling the regional development of the rule of law in a country, by working closely together with domestic constitutional law. The domestic courts both in the United States and South Africa, whenever they deem it appropriate, do consider international and foreign law in the resolution of disputes before them. The conditions under which each jurisdiction may resort to foreign or international law, as well as the criteria used for taking them into consideration, vary. However, most importantly, this practice should be encouraged as it promotes the uniform interpretation of international law and the progressive advancement of norms world-wide, which are aspects that are especially important in the field of human rights.

The Role of Domestic Courts in Effectuating International Law

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 77-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry G. Schermers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Domestic Courts

In his article on the implementation of international law by the domestic courts in the United States, Richard Falk focuses on the possible role of domestic courts with respect to the acts of foreign policy which may be contrary to international law. In general that role is limited. This is the same in Europe. Falk mentions efforts of individuals, to change national foreign policy by means such as the Russell Tribunal, boycotts of products, blocking of tracks and the occupation of buildings. Such activities also happen in Europe but rather with the intention to attract public attention than with the purpose to litigate in court. In Europe it is generally accepted that courts should not take policy decisions of that kind.

Commentary: Judicial Remedies for Treaty Violations in Criminal Cases: Consular Rights of Foreign Nationals in United States Death Penalty Cases

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 851-888
Author(s):  
Douglass Cassel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
International Courts ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Remedies

Litigation over the right of detained foreign nationals to be notified of their right to seek consular assistance in death penalty cases is important to the more than 80 foreign nationals currently on death row in the United States. It also raises more general questions about the role of international law and of international courts in sensitive criminal cases before national courts. International courts and litigants may enhance the likelihood of compliance in such cases by insisting on fair and deliberate procedures, on transparent and thoroughly articulated reasoning, and on prudent shaping of remedies.

I. Lagrand Case (Germany v United States of America)

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm D. Evans ◽  
Martin Mennecke ◽  
Christian J. Tams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

In the LaGrand case, the United States found themselves for the second time within three years before the International Court of Justice dealing with the death penalty imposed on foreign nationals in the United States.1 In contrast to the earlier case filed by Paraguay, the German-sponsored LaGrand case survived the provisional measures phase and went on to the merits stage. In its judgment of 27 June 2001, the Court largely affirmed all four German submissions and ruled that the United States had violated international law.

Civil Suits

2020 ◽  
pp. 315-339
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Convention Against Torture

Rounding out the matrix of accountability, chapter 8 presents several nonpenal options to bring justice to Syria, including civil suits in domestic courts against responsible individuals and entities and options for exercising jurisdiction over the sovereign state of Syria. Because there is no notion of state criminality under international law, only civil claims seeking money damages can be advanced against sovereign states. Jurisdiction over Syria exists before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; however, so far no state has been willing to take Syria to task before the ICJ. And so, victims must bear this burden. In this regard, some tort law options exist in domestic courts, especially in the United States with its suite of statutes giving its domestic courts jurisdiction over certain international law violations in certain circumstances. This chapter features a groundbreaking suit against Syria under the United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which resulted in a $300 million judgment for the surviving family members of Marie Colvin, the intrepid war correspondent assassinated by the Syrian regime. The chapter observes that although civil remedies are no substitute for vigorous criminal liability, these suits do extend victims some dignitary benefits that may not accrue with participation in a criminal process, even as a partie civile, including the opportunity to control the litigation process and act where the public authorities may be unable or unwilling to do so.

The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of the Death Penalty in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 299-315
Author(s):  
Carol S. Steiker ◽  
Jordan M. Steiker
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
History Of ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
History Of Race ◽  
Western Democracies

This review addresses four key issues in the modern (post-1976) era of capital punishment in the United States. First, why has the United States retained the death penalty when all its peer countries (all other developed Western democracies) have abolished it? Second, how should we understand the role of race in shaping the distinctive path of capital punishment in the United States, given our country's history of race-based slavery and slavery's intractable legacy of discrimination? Third, what is the significance of the sudden and profound withering of the practice of capital punishment in the past two decades? And, finally, what would abolition of the death penalty in the United States (should it ever occur) mean for the larger criminal justice system?

Death Penalty Disposition in China: What Matters?

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 253-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yudu Li ◽  
Dennis Longmire ◽  
Hong Lu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Significant Relationships ◽  
Death Sentences ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Using Data

In theory, sentencing decisions should be driven by legal factors, not extra-legal factors. However, some empirical research on the death penalty in the United States shows significant relationships between offender and victim characteristics and death sentence decisions. Despite the fact that China frequently imposes death sentences, few studies have examined these sanctions to see if similar correlations occur in China’s capital cases. Using data from published court cases in China involving three violent crimes—homicide, robbery, and intentional assault—this study examines the net impact of offender’s gender, race, and victim–offender relationship on death sentence decisions in China. Our overall multiple regression results indicate that, after controlling for other legal and extra-legal variables, an offender’s gender, race, and victim–offender relationship did not produce similar results in China when compared with those in the United States. In contrast, it is the legal factors that played the most significant role in influencing the death penalty decisions. The article concludes with explanations and speculations on the unique social, cultural, and legal conditions in China that may have contributed to these correlations.

scholarly journals Pelanggaran Prinsip Persona Grata Atas Penyerangan Duta Besar Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Hukum Internasional (Studi Kasus Penyerangan Duta Besar Amerika Serikat Di Benghazi Libya)

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-74
Author(s):  
Desi Yunitasari
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Recipient Country ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Consequences

The development of human history has proven that relations between countries are inevitable and are a necessity and often cause conflicts. Along with its development, an unavoidable event is an increase in violations of the provisions of international law, especially with regard to the principle of persona grata where officials or diplomat representatives should get protection when it has been received and placed in the recipient country. As happened in mid-2012 namely regarding the bombing incident carried out through a rocket attack on the United States Embassy (Libya) Office, Libya, in Benghazi City, on September 11, 2012. The attack resulted in the Ambassador and three embassy staff killed. In research that uses normative juridical methods, it is necessary to use secondary data, such as books, laws, and research results on research topics to determine the extent of the legal consequences of the principle of persona grata that has been violated. Based on the results of the study explained that the Libyan Government is responsible for the incident because it fulfills two elements of state responsibility including act or omission that can be imputable to a country, and the act or omission constitutes a violation of an international obligation, especially regarding the principle of persona grata. The Government of Libya as the recipient country is obliged to be responsible based on the 1961 Vienna Convention Article 22 Paragraph (2). As the injured party, the United States can hold the Libyan government diplomatically responsible, namely negotiations, bearing in mind that the benefits of negotiation settlement can be measured in all aspects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document