scholarly journals Breard and the Federal Power to Require Compliance With ICJ Orders of Provisional Measures

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 683-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Clinton Administration ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Postponement ◽  
Take All

Among the puzzling aspects of the Breard episode was the Clinton administration’s claim that the decision whether or not to comply with the Order of the International Court of Justice requiring the postponement of Breard’s execution lay exclusively in the hands of the Governor of Virginia. The ICJ’s Order provided that “[t]he United States should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco Breard is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings.” The Clinton administration argued that the Order was not binding, but it also took the position that, even if the order were binding, there would be no authority in the federal Government to require a postponement of the execution. As the administration explained to the Supreme Court:

Provisional Measures, U.S. Treaty Obligations, and the States

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 679-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis Henkin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Take All

In Paraguay v. United States, the International Court of Justice entered the following Order: The Court “[i]ndicates the following provisional measures: The United States should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco Breard is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings, and should inform the Court of all the measures which it has taken in implementation of this Order.”

scholarly journals Revitalizing The U.S. Compliance Power

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-562 ◽  
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.

Court to Court

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 708-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Government Decision ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Case Based

Leave aside the question whether the indication of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice in the Breard case was binding on the United States as a matter of international or domestic law. Scholars will continue to differ on this question; government decision makers will reach their own conclusions. Leave aside that the state of Virginia violated a solemn treaty obligation, a treaty that the Supreme Court is obliged to uphold as the supreme law of the land. Without denigrating the power of these arguments, a less contentious case can be made for the granting of a stay—a case based less on compulsion than on civility.

The 2009 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2010 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Katz Cogan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

The International Court of Justice issued three judgments in 2009: a final decision, of January 19, in Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States); a final decision on the merits, of February 3, in Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine); and a final decision on the merits, of July 13, in Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). In addition, the Court, on May 28, rejected a request by Belgium for the indication of provisional measures directed at Senegal in Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal). The Court also issued orders fixing the time limits in several other pending cases.

The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction

1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 699-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis O. Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Senate ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
One Year ◽  
United Nations Charter

On August 2, 1946, the United States Senate approved the Morse resolution by the overwhelming vote of 62-2, thereby giving its advice and consent to the acceptance on the part of the United States of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It was the same Senate which, just one year and one week earlier, had cast a vote of 89-2 in favor of the United Nations Charter. On August 26 Herschel Johnson, acting United States representative on the Security Council, deposited President Truman’s declaration of adherence with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At long last the United States assumed far-reaching obligations to submit its legal disputes to an international court.

Some Observations on the ICJ’s Procedural and Substantive Innovations

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Franck
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Future

The decision of the International Court of Justice in the case between Nicaragua and the United States brims with important procedural and substantive implications for the future of law and adjudication in disputes between states.

Judge Stephen Schwebel: International Jurist Extraordinaire

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley Dingle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Distinguished Career ◽  
International Court ◽  
Law Library

AbstractThis is a further contribution to the Squire Law Library Eminent Scholars Archive by Lesley Dingle. It is based on interviews with Stephen Schwebel about his distinguished career as an international jurist in the United States and at the International Court of Justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document