4 Decisions and Orders of International Institutions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
System P ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the status in the U.S. legal system of decisions and orders of international institutions to which the United States is a party. It begins with a description of various constitutional doctrines and principles that are potentially implicated by delegations of authority to international institutions, as well as general concerns that have been raised about such delegations relating to democratic accountability. The chapter also recounts the long history of U.S. engagement with international arbitration and the constitutional debates that this engagement has sometimes triggered. Extensive consideration is given to litigation concerning the consular notice provisions in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, including efforts by criminal defendants to enforce decisions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) interpreting these provisions. The U.S. relationship with other international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court, are also considered. The chapter concludes by discussing the extent to which constitutional concerns relating to international delegations can be adequately addressed by presuming that the orders and decisions of international institutions are non–self-executing in the U.S. legal system.

4 Decisions and Orders of International Institutions

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
System P ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the status in the U.S. legal system of decisions and orders of international institutions to which the United States is a party. It begins with a description of various constitutional doctrines and principles that are potentially implicated by delegations of authority to international institutions. The chapter also recounts the long history of U.S. engagement with international arbitration and the constitutional debates that this engagement has sometimes triggered. Extensive consideration is given to litigation concerning the consular notice provisions in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The U.S. relationship with other international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court, are also considered. The chapter concludes by considering the extent to which constitutional concerns relating to international delegations are adequately addressed by presuming that the orders and decisions of international institutions are non–self-executing in the U.S. legal system.

The U.S. Supreme Court: Garcia V. Texas

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-53
Author(s):  
David P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The U.S

On July 7, 2011, the United States Supreme Court declined to stay the execution of Humberto Leal García, a Mexican national who had been convicted some sixteen years ago in Texas of murder.1 Relying on the decision of the International Court of Justice (‘‘ICJ’’) in the Avena case,2 García contended that the United States had violated his right to consular notification and access under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (‘‘Consular Convention’’).3 He sought the stay so that the U.S. Congress could consider enactment of proposed legislation to implement the ICJ decision.4 In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected his argument, stating that ‘‘[t]he Due Process Clause does not prohibit a State from carrying out a lawful judgment in light of unenacted legislation that might someday authorize a collateral attack on that judgment.’’5 García was executed by lethal injection that evening.

International Court of Justice Rules in Favor of Germany and Against the United States in the LaGrand Case

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The U.S

In its judgement from June 27, 2001, in the LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), the International Court of Justice made a number of watershed rulings: (a) The Court established that Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations creates individual rights for foreign nationals abroad, and not just rights protecting the interests of states that are a party to the Convention; (b) The Court ruled that, beyond the undisputed failure on the part of the U.S. to take the measures required by the Convention, the application of an American provision of criminal procedure in the LaGrand brothers' cases (a provision that prevented the domestic courts from reviewing the implications of the Convention violation admitted by the Americans) itself constituted a violation of Article 36(2) of the Convention; (c) The Court, as a remedy in the case of future violations of the Convention, ordered the United States to provide a procedure for the review and reconsideration of convictions secured in circumstances in which the obligations of the Convention had not been observed; and (d) as a separate matter the Court ruled that its provisional orders, issued pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, have binding effect.

2 Treaties

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
The Status ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the status of treaties within the U.S. legal system. The focus is on international agreements concluded through the senatorial advice and consent process specified in Article II of the Constitution. The chapter describes that process, including the Senate’s ability to condition its consent through reservations and other qualifications. It also discusses the role of treaties as supreme law of the land, including the situations in which treaties will be considered “self-executing” and “non–self-executing,” as well as the later-in-time relationship of treaties to federal statutes. The chapter also discusses the relationship of treaties to constitutional limitations concerning the separation of powers and federalism, including the implications of the Supreme Court’s 1920 decision in Missouri v. Holland. The chapter concludes with a consideration of how the United States terminates treaties.

2 Treaties

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
The Status ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the status of treaties within the U.S. legal system. The focus is on international agreements concluded through the senatorial advice-and-consent process specified in Article II of the Constitution. The chapter describes that process, including the Senate’s ability to condition its consent through reservations and other qualifications. It also discusses the role of treaties as supreme law of the land, including the situations in which treaties will be considered “self-executing” and “non–self-executing,” as well as the later-in-time relationship of treaties to federal statutes. The chapter also discusses the relationship of treaties to constitutional limitations concerning the separation of powers and federalism, including the implications of the Supreme Court’s 1920 decision in Missouri v. Holland. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the president’s constitutional authority to withdraw the United States from treaties.

scholarly journals AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

1969 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric D. Smaw
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

In what follows, I present a combination of philosophical and political perspectives on human rights and the establishment of an international criminal court. I present the United States’ pragmatic objections to establishing an international criminal court. Contrary to the United States’ pragmatic objections, I argue in favor of an international criminal court. Ultimately, I attempt to illustrate that the international criminal court will have protective measures designed to prevent political abuses of justice. When working properly, these protective measures will satisfy the U.S.’s pragmatic concerns. Thus, I conclude, the U.S. ought not abandon its longer history of supporting the establishment of an international criminal court.

scholarly journals International Law in the U.S. Legal System

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
War Powers ◽  
System P ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The U.S

This book provides an overview of how international law intersects with the domestic legal system of the United States, and points out various unresolved issues and areas of controversy. The book covers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. It also explores a number of issues that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as the use of “executive agreements” in lieu of treaties, foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute, war powers, extradition, international criminal prosecution, and extraterritoriality. The book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic (including decisions and events arising out of the war on terrorism), while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating both to the U.S. constitutional founding and to long-standing practices of Congress and the executive branch.

An American Language

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosina Lozano
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spanish Language ◽  
Spanish Speakers ◽  
Language Recognition ◽  
Political Language ◽  
Political Issue ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

An American Language is a political history of the Spanish language in the United States. The nation has always been multilingual and the Spanish language in particular has remained as an important political issue into the present. After the U.S.-Mexican War, the Spanish language became a language of politics as Spanish speakers in the U.S. Southwest used it to build territorial and state governments. In the twentieth century, Spanish became a political language where speakers and those opposed to its use clashed over what Spanish's presence in the United States meant. This book recovers this story by using evidence that includes Spanish language newspapers, letters, state and territorial session laws, and federal archives to profile the struggle and resilience of Spanish speakers who advocated for their language rights as U.S. citizens. Comparing Spanish as a language of politics and as a political language across the Southwest and noncontiguous territories provides an opportunity to measure shifts in allegiance to the nation and exposes differing forms of nationalism. Language concessions and continued use of Spanish is a measure of power. Official language recognition by federal or state officials validates Spanish speakers' claims to US citizenship. The long history of policies relating to language in the United States provides a way to measure how U.S. visions of itself have shifted due to continuous migration from Latin America. Spanish-speaking U.S. citizens are crucial arbiters of Spanish language politics and their successes have broader implications on national policy and our understanding of Americans.

Questions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The U.S

We have investigated the differences in support for the U.S. Supreme Court among black, Hispanic, and white Americans, catalogued the variation in African Americans’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities, and examined how those latter two factors shape individuals’ support for the U.S. Supreme Court, that Court’s decisions, and for their local legal system. We take this opportunity to weave our findings together, taking stock of what we have learned from our analyses and what seem like fruitful paths for future research. In the process, we revisit Positivity Theory. We present a modified version of the theory that we hope will guide future inquiry on public support for courts, both in the United States and abroad.

I

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 896-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Lachs
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
American Society ◽  
Second World ◽  
Shed Light

To write of Philip Jessup means to survey the history of the teaching of international law in the United States throughout the last half century; to cover all important events concerning the birth of international organizations on the morrow of the Second World War; to visit the halls of the General Assembly and the Security Council; to attend meetings of the American Society of International Law and the Institute of International Law, where he so frequently took the floor to shed light on their debates; to attend sittings of the International Court of Justice in the years 1960-1969. I could hardly undertake this task; there are others much more qualified to do so. What I wish to do is to recall him as a great jurist I knew and a delightful human being; in short, a judge and a great friend whom I learned to admire.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document