The actual issue is an apparent widespread failure of U.S. jurisdictions to abide by U.S. treaty obligation to inform foreign nationals charged with crimes of their right, under the 1963 Vienna Convention, to contact their consular officials.
Following the article, “The US … conceded that local authorities in the state of Arizona violated an international agreement on consular access, but it insisted that the violations had no bearing in the outcomes of the cases.” While the German authorities (who I have read elsewhere are joined by a number of other nations including France in this complaint) asserted, “Today’s case does not concern the fact of the LaGrand brothers’ death, as sad as it is, nor is it against the practice of capital punishment as such, but concerns a high principle of international law.”
Thus the question is about U.S. responsiveness to our treaty obligations in this regard, not the death penalty per se! * Please, please, please let’s not do a death penalty debate * Also, if I may, I’d like not to focus too heavily on the specific case in the article but on the general principals.
This caught my eye as I work overseas quite frequently and am well aware that U.S. officials are quite aggressive about enforcing the reciprocal right to consular access. The point of debate for Great Debates is how and why should we or should be not respond to this situation.
I personally feel a bit nervous about such situations as I work in areas where arbitrary detention of foreign nationals is not unknown. I have a personal stake in not having consular consultation rights undermined --and if we, that is the USA are not respecting our treaty obligations other nations can and will use this as an excuse not to respond to our pressure.
There was a similar case in the state of virginia not too many years ago. I believe a south american was put to death in spite of the fact that due process was not given.
Generally I think lower level authorities (state governors, etc) do not realize the implications. Of course, if a national of Virgina was not given due process in a foreign country they’d be up in arms about it.
I think the people at the Federal level have a more clear idea of the effects and are much more careful. While the governor of Virginia was saying things like “I don’t care and the guy’s gonna fry” Madeleine Allbright was issuing very carefully worded declarations trying to control the damage. Basically she was saying that “if we would want other countries to abide by their treaties with us, we should abide by or committments to them”
I believe this Virgina case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court who said it was OK to execute the guy. Since I am not a lawyer and I really do not know the details of the sentence I cannot comment on it. Initially it seems contrary to law but I would think the Supreme Court knows the law better than I do so I have to reserve my opinion until I have all the information.
There are other laws (like the forfeit of property with no legal process laws) which I believe have no place in a civilized society, and yet, they have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
At any rate, I’d hate to be the next American negotiator dealing with a foreign country after America has not respected their treaty. How can he possibly command any respect?
Americans do not realize how bad this type of behavior makes their country look. A country based on laws… except when it can get away with it and then it behaves like a street bully.
but none of them mention anything about this aspect of the case. I cannot form an opinion on this particular case without seeing more information. Perhaps you can provide it?
in which the International Court of Justice communicates its request/order to halt the execution, based on German appeals regarding the denial of consular rights to its two citizens.
Frankly, the specifics of the case at hand (the Germans being executed) strike me as less important than our rather cavalier attitude towards the ICJ since we like to have others pay attention to it when we use it.
Bad precedents in my mind, very very bad.
I have a bad feeling that a combination of parochialism and excessive “fry em” sentiment leads to this. It may be selfish self-interest, but this is not a good thing.
Let’s not forget that there are situations in which the accused may very well be a naturalized United States citizen but that his original country (Israel, for one, does not allow the relinquishing of Israeli citizenship) may very well consider him a citizen of that country. In such cases, the United States has exactly zero obligation to inform the other ocuntry of a thing. That’s exactly the way the accused is treated when a United States citizen is considered a national of another country and is arrested in that country.
Please remember that “dual nationality” is not a choice by the individual, but rather a claim made by governments to an individual’s allegiance.
For more info on this matter, check the US State Department’s web site at http://www.state.gov.
It takes years to execute someone in this country. I find it hard to believe that in that time they would have been unable to contact someone from their government.
What does the convention text say on the issue of dual nationality? Or better what does relevant international law say on this. Relenquished nationality is one matter, but another nation’s affirmation is another subject. I also beg to differ on the last assertion. That would, I am sure, depend on the circumstances of the claimed nationality
(ies).
Certainly not in all cases! Dual nationality may or may not be the choice of the individual, obviously if nationality has been affirmatively relenquishes that’s one matter.
It would be nice to provide the actual cite, which is:
Irrelevant as to the legal duty. In the case of the German brothers they did contact consular officials, later. However, it is a positive duty, it appears under the Convention, for the arresting authorities to contact consular officials when they ascertain the arrested individuals are non-citizens.
It appears uncontroversial that US local authorities are not living up to this positive duty. Insofar as the US aggressively, and correctly, pursues this right abroad for its citizens, we put ourselves in a poor predicament.
Collounsbury: If the United States considers an individual to be a citizen of the United States, then said government considers said individual to be a citizen solely of the United States and does not recognize the claims of any other government on said individual albeit the US government does recognize the right of the other government to claim the individual is a citizen of that nation. The claim is merely irrelavent.
You’ll readily see that the key thing is location of the individual. If the individual is located, say, in Iran (as in a US woman married to an Iranian man - remember “Not Without My Daughter”), then Iran’s claim is the only one that matters insofar as Iran is concerned. If located in the US, then the US’s claim is the one that matters.
Maybe it isn’t their fault. So the Federal Government makes a treaty regarding the access of foreign nationals under arrest to consular services. Did they then pass laws or make provisions for state and local law enforcement to see that this is done?
I may be mistaken but I don’t think they did. Texas executed a Canadian national named Joseph Faulder on June 17th, 1999. Madeline Albright was quite upset at this and pleaded with Texas to at least give him a stay of execution. If she had any avenue to stop the execution I’m sure she would have attempted to do so. That leads me to believe that there are no provisions or requirements for state and local authorities to follow these treaties.
I would like to hear an informed legal opinion because the rest of us can only WAG. I am quite sure that in these cases they were foreign nationals with no US citizenship. I would also be quite sure that any treaties of the Federal Guvmint would override state law. Foreign diplomats enjoy immunity and i doubt the Feds would just shrug if a State decided to prosecute one.
I do know the Supreme Court has upheld an execution in VA where the guy was not afforded access to consular protection. Again, I’d like some lawyer to explain the principles involved.