According to this thread:
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2001/ipresscom2001-16_20010627.htm
the US ignored rulings of the International Court and went ahead with an execution. This has now been ruled to be against international laws.
The question is- which is more important for the US, using Capital Punishment because that is the will of the people, or keeping to international law and not appearing to have engaged in an act of murder itself?
I saw this on German news, and the impression I got was that the International court didn’t condemn the executions as such. The point was procedural - the US hadn’t allowed German officials to render their countrymen whatever assistance they could offer and hadn’t informed the German consulate in a timely manner, even though the US had an obligation to do so under the Vienna convention.
The official German point of view, as far as I understood, didn’t concern itself with DP - they more or less said that if a German is given a fair trial and found guilty of murder in a place with DP, well, tough shit for him. They were pissed, however, that the US hadn’t lived up to its obligations of informing Germany, allowing help etc. under the convention.
S. Norman
There was a provisional ruling that there was a probable breach of treaty obligations. The International Court issued a direction that the execution should be delayed until the Court had ruled (similar to an injunction). The US decided to ignore this and Arizona went ahead with the execution. The court’s latest judgement makes it clear that in the case of foreign nationals, consular consultations must have taken place to allow support from the home state. If this has not occurred, then there will be a prima facie case that correct judicial procedure has not been followed. Incorrect process implies unlawful acts which should be rectified. Germany may request a posthumous pardon.
I believe that another German citizen is on death row, and it will be interesting to see whether the US respects this clear finding of international law.
Further information:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010627/wl/world_court_us_execution_9.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1410000/1410263.stm
Yes, I am sure that that is what it says.
Sorry, I guess I misread your OP, then.
I thought you were implying that the international court had somehow spoken against capital punishment per se, not the procedural problems in this case. My mistake.
S. Norman
**
Of course the United States ignored the ruling. I can’t find the part of the Constitution that grants foreign bodies any legal authority over any part of the United States.
I think the answer is pretty obvious. I don’t think many Americans are worried about international law one way or the other. I didn’t vote for any of those representatives who made those international laws.
Marc
Not to mention that the two “Germans” who were executed had been living in the United States since they were brought here by their American father as children. It was only when their appeals were exhausted that they suddenly rediscovered their German citizenship.
Incidentally, if the International Court ever tries to assert jurisdiction over a criminal case in Texas, I am definitely going to want to head down to the Court of Criminal Appeals for that hearing. It ought to be amusing watching those judges laugh their way through the oral arguments. Shoot, they barely listen to the U.S. Supreme Court!
**
from one of the articles cited:
The US ratification suggests that we, as a nation agreed to abide by these procedures. And it appears that we failed to do so in this case. If it were a case of a US citizen about to be executed in another country, I’d be rather surprised if we (the US) weren’t adamant that the correct procedures had been followed, including an appeal such as this one. And yes, minty even if said citizen had lived in the host country since their youth.
I disagree, however, with the OP in the respect that I feel it had very little to do with the DP per se (on our part) and much more to do with the rationale proposed by MGibson (‘we don’t have to listen to what some World Court has to say’ sort of thing).
To Mgibson
The reasoning goes-
1/ The US enters into a binding agreement with another state.
2/ Part of this agreement is that differences are not settled by further negotiation, but by referral to the International Court of Justice. The US agrees to this.
3/ Later, when Arizona’s actions apparently contradict the agreement, Germany goes to the court and gets an interim ruling ordering the halting of the execution.
4/ The US goes ahead and allows the execution to go ahead.
Not a great deal of respect for a law voluntarily agreed to.
The fact that you, didn’t vote for the representatives who agreed this (which must have been a President supported by the Senate) does not absolve the US from upholding the international law as agreed. The par of the constitution that allows this is the treaty making powers of the president and senate.
To MintyGreen
I forget my constitutional law, so maybe someone can help me- what happens when a Treaty made by the Federal Government is contrary to the actions of a State?
Well, we’ll see what y’all say when some US citizen gets executed/flogged/whatever in [insert islamic fundamentalist country of your choice] for [insert crime of your choice].
**
Yes, we call those treaties. However I’m unsure that a treaty automatically makes for a law in this nation. I hope not because that would be a great way for the Senate and President to bypass the House when it came to making bills into laws.
**
Arizona apparantly didn’t violate US law. And I don’t think our judicial system recognizes the authority of foreign bodies over our laws and procedures. I don’t think a treaty changes that.
I’d like to know that as well. Not to long ago the state of Texas executed a Canadian national. There was similiar protest about violating international law but nobody could, or would, order Texas to stop. Madeline Albright asked Bush to issue a stay of execution but Bush isn’t in the habit of doing that.
Marc
MGibson, here’s the relevant portion of the Constitution regarding treaties and their relevance to US law (emphasis mine).
minty, can you shed some light on how this does in fact relate when a treaty signed by the Feds appears to supercede state criminal law and police power? It appears that this Article claims that any treaties which the United States signs binds the judges in every state to adhere to it as law.
Depends on whether the feds care about violating the treaty. There’s nothing particularly binding about treaties, after all. The federal government may withdraw from or ignore a treaty with any other country whenever it feels like it. Not that that’s necessarily a great idea, but merely saying “It’s in the treaty!” does not make it legally binding. Of course, if the feds had wanted to stop the executions based on the Vienna Convention or the International Court’s ruling, it could have done so easily by seeking a restraining order in federal court.
Incidentally, the LaGrand brothers’ Vienna Convention arguments were considered by the federal courts. Obviously, they lost. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion may be found here. I believe the Supreme Court denied review of the case, although it did later vacate 9th Circuit orders barring their execution via the gas chamber.
Xerxes: You mean like that punk kid who got caned in Singapore a decade ago for spraypainting cars? As I remember it, most of the American public at the time supported the punishment. So did I.
MGibson:
Bad news for you: that’s exactly the way it works. In fact, through treaties, the federal government may even regulate things that would ordinarily be beyond its enumerated powers in the constitution. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
Oops, slight clarification, MGibson. I honestly don’t know what effect a treaty alone has on state or federal courts. My guess is that somebody from the executive might have to step in to get it enforced. After all, I can’t imagine some district court judge in North Dakota ruling that the Bush Administration was violating the ABM treaty, for instance.
However, most treaties are accompanied by “enabling legislation.” Such legislation does require the approval of both houses of Congress, as well as the President’s signature. Once passed, it’s every bit as binding as any other federal law–and maybe more so, as you’ll see in the Holland case.
pldennison: I think the “enabling legislation” answer I just gave to Marc is your best answer. However, I don’t really know of any instances when the U.S. has signed onto treaties restricting the power of the individual states to enforce their criminal laws, so I guess it’s an open question how far the feds can go before it would be unconstitutional. I do know that treaties can’t muck about with the Bill of Rights. If you’re interested in that particular exception to the treaty power, look for Reid v. Covert (1957) in the Supreme Court opinions over on Findlaw. Reid and Holland are the two leading cases on the treaty power.
Everyone: Clearly, the Vienna Convention requires its signatory nations to tell foreign citizens of their right to contact a consulate when they are arrested. The question in this case is what to do about it when that doesn’t happen. The Convention itself apparently makes no provision for what happens when the defendant is not told about the right to contact their consulate.
Sheesh, does anybody really think this is supposed to be some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card? And if not, what’s so special about the death penalty that we have to commute it to a lesser sentence if the Vienna Convention isn’t followed? Are we supposed to lop off five years from a German bank robber’s 20-year sentence if he isn’t told about the consulate? Do we cut a traffic fine in half? Heck no! If there isn’t any prejudice that results from not complying with the Convention, then I think the courts are perfectly justified in letting it slide.
Even though this Vienna Convention was reatified more than thirty years ago, it hasn’t led to many court opinions until the last few years. Texas courts dealing with claims that Vienna Convention rights violations have been looking at whether the Vienna Convention created any individual rights that could be violated. I believe they place the Vienna Convention at the same level as federal statute, and therefore beneath the Bill of Rights.
The analysis usually looks to see whether there existed any Due Process violations. What they tend to conclude is that Constitutional rights of the accused were not violated. I beleive the trend in Texas is to decide that the Vienna Convention does not create individual rights in a criminal defendant. If you look into the Arizona case, you’ll probably find that all of the necessary Constitutional rules were followed - they had lawyers, a fair trial, etc.
Courts tend to ask the question, What can a Consul give to an accused foreign national that the U.S. and state constitutions do not already give? So far, that answer amounts to nothing. Defendants already have a right to a lawyer, but maybe a Consul could suggest which one to hire.
But Pjen asked:
The answer is that what is most important to the US is whether the Constitutional rights of an accused were violated. If the answer to that question is no, then the courts won’t intercede to answer the question of what would have happened if a consul had been notified. The Vienna Convention is not as important as the Constitution. No one is going to get a reprieve or pardon if he received a fair trial but didn’t get to whine to a consul about it.
Damn, liebfels, where ya been? Here I am talking off the top of my head, and you come in with a perfectly good answer explaining what courts are really doing with the Convention. 
A quick check of my cd-rom full of Texas cases shows seventeen cases discussing the Vienna Convention, including three from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state’s supreme court for criminal cases). And they all say pretty much what liebfels thought: no prejudice to the defendant, no new trial.
I think you’re missing the picture. From what I read, the World Court probably would have upheld the conviction and punishment, due to the ideas that you’re talking about (that there were no aggregious failings in the process, except for the lack of notification). However, once again, the US has stood by with a tone of ‘we know what we’re doing and no one can tell us what to do or not do’ and this is where I think we made a mistake.
The treaty called for the parties to settle the dispute in the World Court. We chose not to do so. even if the final result would have been the same, the fact we chose to not honor the treaty is something that can come back to haunt us.
How’s this for an analogy:
Man/woman in divorce court with property settlement. Both claim ownership of a piece of jewelry with great sentimental attatchment. The court orders that nothing be done with the item until after the ruling by the court. Instead the wife has it destroyed. Now, even if the court had been inclined to rule that it belonged to the wife and she could do with it as she pleased, wouldn’t she still be in trouble w/the court? Hmmm? yes???
So, here you have a treaty with two countries, both have agreed that the World Court settle disputes. But, instead of waiting for the ruling, the US went ahead and did what they felt was correct. Now, even if the World Court would have ultimately agreed, I still see that our actions can be called into question. We were’nt willing to allow the process to continue, dispite our agreement beforehand that we would.
Doesn’t that strike any one else as being a bit short sighted? Won’t other countries now feel that our agreement in a treaty isn’t worth the ink/paper?
I’m really not offended by telling the International Court of Justice to stuff it. I happen to like the idea that the U.S. is a sovereign nation, and that a bunch of United Nations doofuses opposed to the death penalty–and these judges are, by and large, opposed to the death penalty–can’t waltz in and stop the American Justice system from functioning. Besides, yesterday’s ruling was the first time ever that the ICJ proclaimed its rulings were legally binding. So until yesterday, it wasn’t even an issue that their ruling might have had some legal effect on the Arizona and Federal courts.
You are missing the point. The US Federal Government enters into a binding treaty with agreed arbitration. It then ignores the process and allows Arizona to proceed with what is retrospectively seen to be an illegal killing (no due process, no legality). Therefore CP was seen as more important than recognizing international law to which they had voluntarily assented.
Doesn’t look very moral to me.
No, I disagree with your point.
Tough noogies. Treaties are entered into voluntarily, and may be ignored or abandoned at will. They are, as wring put it, not worth the ink and paper they’re printed with. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.
Nonsense. Show me where the LaGrand brothers were denied due process or a fair trial. There is no due process right of a foreign citizen to be informed that he may call his consulate upon arrest.
I see nothing about this case that says “capital punishment” was more important than the Vienna Convention. That’s just a rhetorical flourish on your part. What this case really stands for is the proposition that the International Court of Justice is not competent to dictate how Arizona and the rest of the United States manages its own affairs. We may choose to comply with their orders, but they may not require our adherence.
The case raises some interesting issues.
One thing that strikes me is the issue of federalism.
There are limits to the Federal Government’s ability to control the states.
For example, let’s suppose that the government establishes a minimum wage of $6.00 per hour, but the State of Maine wants to pay certain state employees only $5.00 per hour.
Who do you think would win?
I realize that capital punishment is more serious; and I realize that states must stay within the 5th Amendment to the Constitution; but I’m not sure that an International Treaty (which is treated like a federal statute) can lawfully force a State to grant any more rights to criminal defendants than what is required by the Constitution.