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.

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.

scholarly journals Palestine Brings a Case Against the United States in the International Court of Justice at a Fraught Time for U.S.-Palestinian Relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-149
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Relationship

While Palestine considers itself a state, the United States does not currently recognize it as such. The relationship between the two has continued to deteriorate following the December 2017 announcement that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there. Alleging that the embassy relocation violates international law, Palestine brought a case against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in September of 2018. The United States reacted by announcing its withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol). Also in the fall of 2018, the Trump administration closed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, curtailed its own Palestinian-focused mission in Jerusalem, and sharply cut U.S. funding focused on Palestinian interests.

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.

scholarly journals Trump Administration Announces Withdrawal from Four International Agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-141
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Court ◽  
Trump Administration

In October of 2018, the Trump administration announced that the United States would withdraw from four international agreements. On October 3, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would withdraw from the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights with Iran. Later that day, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced that the United States was also withdrawing from the Optional Protocol to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). Both withdrawals were triggered by pending International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases grounded in these treaties that were recently brought against the United States. Two weeks later, in an escalation of the ongoing trade dispute with China, the United States gave notice of withdrawal from the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the international body charged with overseeing the international mailing system. Finally, on October 22, 2018, President Trump announced that the United States would be terminating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia. Unlike other withdrawals undertaken by the Trump administration, this latest round involved three Article II treaties to which the Senate had provided its advice and consent. In addition, the international commitments withdrawn from in this round were long-standing ones, with U.S. participation in the UPU going back as far as 1875.

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.

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?

scholarly journals Music of the 1960s: The Praxis of Ideological Change

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Poe ◽  
Melody Fisher ◽  
Stephen Brandon ◽  
Darvelle Hutchins ◽  
Mark Goodman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Vietnam War ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Cultural Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
The World ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Ideological Change

In this article, we consider music as the praxis of ideology in the 1960s within the framework of Burke’s rhetoric of transformation. The 1960s were a period of cultural change in the United States and around the world—the civil rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, challenges to communism in Eastern Europe, liberation politics around the world. The role of music as a unifying element among those people advocating change is well established in scholarship. We take that consideration of the role of music into a discussion of how music became the praxis of ideology, providing a place where millions of people could advocate for change and be part of the change by interacting with the music.

scholarly journals The “Default Hypothesis” Fails to Explain Jewish Influence

Philosophia ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin MacDonald
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Jewish Community ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
White Majority ◽  
Intellectual Movements

AbstractThe role of Jewish activism in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West in recent decades continues to be controversial. Here I respond to several issues putatively related to Jewish influence, particularly the “default hypothesis” that Jewish IQ and urban residency explain Jewish influence and the role of the Jewish community in enacting the 1965 immigration law in the United States; other issues include Jewish ethnocentrism and intermarriage and whether diaspora Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes on immigration to Israel versus the United States. The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture. Jewish activism in the pro-immigration movement involved: intellectual movements denying the importance of race in human affairs; establishing, staffing, and funding anti-restrictionist organizations; recruiting prominent non-Jews to anti-restrictionist organizations; rejecting the ethnic status quo as a goal because of fear of a relatively homogeneous white majority; leadership in Congress and the executive branch.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document