Cases Flashcards
Kindler v. Canada
US citizen flees to Canada and would get the death penalty if extradited
Even though Canada doesn’t have the death penalty, that does not mean they won’t extradite.
Takeaways
1) No global stance on the death penalty
2) Safe haven argument (Canada doesn’t want to become a safe haven for criminals facing death elsewhere)
3) Deference to exec branch for treaties
US v. Burns
Canadian citizens flee to Canada and would get death penalty if extradited
Can’t extradite without assurances of no death penalty (unless extraordinary circumstances)
rejects safe haven argument
Soering v. UK
S committed murders in US. He is in prison in UK, but is a German citizen. Death penalty if extradited to US.
Article 3 of ECHR might be grounds not to extradite if there is evidence that party being extradited will face ill-treatment in the requesting country
He faces a real risk of death penalty if extradited to the US, so the extradition would be in violation of Article 3 of ECHR –> (the problem is not the death penalty itself, but the death row phenomenon)
Roper v. Simmons
Simmons committed murder at 17 and was sentenced to death
Death penalty for minors is unconstitutional – national consensus against it and international community against it. Court also looked at social science data.
Roper Test
foreign and int’l law can confirm the existence of a national consensus.
Is there a national consensus?
Yes -> Use non-binding int’l law to confirm the national consensus.
No -> No confirmatory strength.
Roper v. Simmons Scalia Dissent
US should not look to other countries when interpreting its own Constitution. Keep soft intl law out of constitutional interpretation.
(1) The Senate reservation to Article 37 of the UN Convention on Rights of Child is black letter international law, so we should adhere to it. This indicates national consensus that juvenile DP should be allowed.
(2) Don’t cherry pick from UK. If we want to be like them, then we need to get rid of the role of jury, church & state, abortion
Abbott v. Abbott
Treaty interpretation -
1) Plain meaning of treaty
2) Congruent with overall goals of treaty
3) Exec branch interpretation
4) Other countries’ interpretation (esp. Chile)
5) Publicists and experts
The Paquette Habana
Constitutional supremacy clause gives customary int’l law binding strength in domestic law
Medellin v. Texas
Requiring a treaty to be self-executing makes ratification in the US more difficult.
Although the ICJ decision creates international obligation, it does not constitute binding federal law that preempts state administration of justice within its state (police power)
The Island of the Palmas Case
- US/Netherlands claim island
- us claims cession from spain (contracts)
- netherlands claims possession and continuous
- netherlands wins case
Nottebohm Case
N is german national and naturalized in Lichtenstein and lives and conducts business in guatemala.
ct says N does not have citizenship with L because he does not have a long-standing and close connection with the state
Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company
BTLP incorporated in Canada, operates in spain, belgian national shareholders
nationality of company is place of incorporation
Kristic
ICTY 2004
genocide of military aged bosnian muslim men
it is enough to be convicted of genocide if the people targeted comprise a substantial part of the group.
US v Belfast (Chuckie Taylor)
US Ct of Appeals 11th Cir
Rational basis between domestic law and international treaty - rejection of mirror image rule
international treaty contains a floor not a concrete definition
APAZO v. President of South Africa
South African Constitutional Court 1996
SA amnesty for people who committed political crime
customary international law does not require prosecution and punishment
since this was decided before ICC was established, the outcome would probably be different today
