Breaking IL Flashcards
What is the distinction between violation of a treaty and termination of a treaty?
Violation - party breaks terms of treaty
Termination - conflict between treaty and domestic law
Both statutes and treaties are the supreme law of the land. So how do we resolve a conflict between those two sources of law?
Later in Time Rule
Congress can pass a law that violates a treaty. But would that mean the US carries no international legal obligation?
No. Vienna Convention Article 27 says that domestic law isnt justification for breaking a treaty. US can break treaty via later in time rule but has to face the consequences of breaking it.
So, what has the Supreme Court done when there is a conflict between a federal statute and a treaty?
SC will try to read a statute passed by congress in a way that does not violate international obligations it has
What are the facts of the Medellín case? What did he argue? And did Texas reply? What did the appellate court rule?
Medellin, a mexican citizen, raped and murdered two teenage girls in Texas. Both Mexico and US parties to Consular Relations Vienna Convention which provides a framework for one state to establish consulates in another and allows citizens who are arrested to contact the consulate. Medellin was not told of his consular rights when he was arrested. He was convicted and it was affirmed
P argument: his consular rights were violated so his case should be dismissed
Texas: he failed to bring the violation during trial or appeal
Holding: while treaties may comprise international commitments… they are not domestic law unless congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be “self-executing” and is ratified on these terms.
What was ICJ jurisdiction based on?
Based on Article 1 of Optional Protocol of the Vienna Convention that says any dispute is under ICJ jurisdiction. Both countries were parties.
What happened in Breard v. Greene? What was the issue? The arguments of the parties? And then ruling? What were the underlying legal reasons?
Breard was a Paraguayan citizen, convicted of murder, he was not notified of his VCCR rights. He did not bring up the VCCR right until his appeal but by then it was already too late. paraguay sued US in ICJ
The court said the procedural default rule applied (can’t bring up something on appeal if you didn’t raise it in trial)
Holding: 2 reasons why Breard’s is wrong.
1) The procedural rules of the forum state (Procedural Default Rule) have to be followed, they govern the implementation of a treaty in that state, so since the rules weren’t followed Breard isn’t entitled to relief. And
2) Law later in time rules. VCCR gives the right to consular assistance since 1969 but Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (ADEPA) in 1996 which limits some of the VCCR’s rights
What about the LaGrand Case?
This case was just like the Breard case except Germany did not withdraw its case from the ICJ
I
CJ Holding: failure to notify the LaGrands of their VCCR rights violated the U.S. obligations under the treaty and the application of the Procedural Default Rule was a violation of the treaty in cases like this.
also held that its order for provisional measures is BINDING
What was the issue in Avena at the ICJ? What was Mexico alleging the US obligations that had been violated? What did the US reply? And what did the ICJ find?
US Court held that 51 detained Mexicans had their VCCR rights violated because they were not notified of their rights and the authorities failed to notify Mexican consular of their detention. US counters these violations were not brought up in trial.
ICJ Holding: U.S. should review and reconsider because they needed to make reparations for violating the treaty, commuting or vacating the Mexicans sentences was not the real issue.
The ICJ issued “provisional measures”. What are those and what, in practice, do they require?
Binding decisions similar to preliminary injunction. For urgent matters.
What was the effect on other domestic US cases, for example, Torres, after the ICJ ruling?
Courts held it was bound by Avena decision and the decisions of congress & president to be part of treaty. execution was stayed to see if his VCCR rights were violated.
And why is this distinction between the two treaty types easier to draw in theory than in practice?
Why, despite the position of the executive branch at the ICJ, would the State Department offer training to police departments across the US?
To preserve international relations and prevent future violations of the treaty that can dispute international relations
