Protecting the Court’s Institutional Interests: Why Not the Marbury Approach?

A wise prince must rely on what is in his power and not on what is in the power of others.MachiavelliThe International Court of Justice in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua confronted a dilemma that paralleled in many ways the one confronted by the United States Supreme Court in the famous 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Each dispute confronted a young court that had not yet established its legitimacy; each court faced a powerful, recalcitrant defendant that challenged its right to decide the case; and each therefore seemed to face two equally unpalatable choices: avoiding the case and seeming to admit defeat, or resolving it only to have the judgment ignored. Either choice seemed to entail profound damage not only for the court as an institution but also for the legal system in which it operated.

Download Full-text

Lawyers' use of humor as persuasion

Humor - International Journal of Humor Research ◽

10.1515/humor.2007.007 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Pamela Hobbs

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Legal System ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

United States Supreme ◽

Oral Argument ◽

Linguistic Skills ◽

Court Mandated ◽

American Legal System

AbstractLegal humor is a topic of perennial appeal, and has long been a prolific source of books, articles, and scholarly commentaries which are avidly consumed by popular and professional audiences alike. However, although a number of scholars have analyzed the use of humor in judicial opinions, there is no comparable body of scholarly examinations of lawyers' use of humor in their role as legal advocates. This omission is significant, because in the American legal system, humor and wordplay serve as highly-valued evidence of forensic skill which is deemed appropriate for display both within and outside of the courtroom. Accordingly, this paper attempts to fill the gap in the existing literature by examining attorneys' use of humor as persuasive advocacy in two widely divergent settings, informal court-mandated mediation and oral argument before the United States Supreme Court. In these data, the attorneys use humor aggressively to ridicule the plaintiffs' claims, depicting them as laughable and unworthy of serious consideration, while placing themselves at the center of a comic performance which allows them to display their linguistic skills. These data thus demonstrate that humor can be a potent weapon in an attorney's arsenal.

Download Full-text

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

International Legal Materials ◽

10.5305/intelegamate.51.1.0044 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Revitalizing The U.S. Compliance Power

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/20456643 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 102 (3) ◽

pp. 551-562 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Steve Charnovitz

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Obligation ◽

International Court ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Law ◽

The U.S

Although “[tjreaties are the law of the land, and a rule of decision in all courts,” the president and the courts may sometimes be powerless to achieve compliance with a U.S. treaty. That was the puzzling outcome of Medellin v. Texas. Even though the Supreme Court declared that the United States has an international obligation to comply with the Avena judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court invalidated the president’s memorandum directing Texas and other errant states to comply.

Download Full-text

Post-Avena Application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by United States Courts

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s092215650500261x ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 18 (2) ◽

pp. 215-235 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

CHRISTOPHER J. LE MON

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Vienna Convention ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

The Us ◽

Us Supreme Court ◽

The Icj

Following the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Avena case, US courts have had a mixed record in applying the decision domestically. In this article, I examine the treatment by US courts of claims by criminal defendants alleging Vienna Convention violations, subsequent to the Avena judgment. First, I discuss the two limited decisions so far taken by the US Supreme Court regarding the Vienna Convention, and briefly explain several of the judicially-created rules that have prevented most US courts from reaching the merits of Vienna Convention claims. Next, I analyse the ICJ judgment in the LaGrand case, and provide an overview of the reception of that case by the US courts. After a summary of the Avena decision, I turn to the latest cases in which Vienna Convention claims based on Avena have been raised in US courts, focusing on the two most important decisions, and examining their contradictory rulings. As the US Supreme Court has now decided to hear an appeal in one of these cases, I conclude by arguing that the Supreme Court should take the opportunity to elucidate the role of the International Court of Justice in US law when the United States has consented to binding treaty interpretation by that court.

Download Full-text