Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial Body
NY Times ^ | March 10, 2005 | ADAM LIPTAK

Posted on 03/09/2005 8:35:05 PM PST by neverdem

Prompted by an international tribunal's decision last year ordering new hearings for 51 Mexicans on death rows in the United States, the State Department said yesterday that the United States had withdrawn from the protocol that gave the tribunal jurisdiction to hear such disputes.

The withdrawal followed a Feb. 28 memorandum from President Bush to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales directing state courts to abide by the decision of the tribunal, the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The decision required American courts to grant "review and reconsideration" to claims that the inmates' cases had been hurt by the failure of local authorities to allow them to contact consular officials.

The memorandum, issued in connection with a case the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear this month, puzzled state prosecutors, who said it seemed inconsistent with the administration's general hostility to international institutions and its support for the death penalty.

The withdrawal announced yesterday helps explains the administration's position.

Darla Jordan, a State Department spokeswoman, said the administration was troubled by foreign interference in the domestic capital justice system but intended to fulfill its obligations under international law.

But Ms. Jordan said, "We are protecting against future International Court of Justice judgments that might similarly interfere in ways we did not anticipate when we joined the optional protocol."

Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at the University of Georgia, said the withdrawal was unbecoming.

"It's a sore-loser kind of move," Professor Spiro said. "If we can't win, we're not going to play."

Ms. Jordan emphasized that the United States was not withdrawing from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations itself, which gives people arrested abroad the right to contact their home countries' consulates. But the United States is withdrawing, she said, from an optional protocol that gives the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, jurisdiction to hear disputes under the convention.

"While roughly 160 countries belong to the consular convention," she said, "less than 30 percent of those countries belong to the optional protocol. By withdrawing from the protocol, the United States has joined the 70 percent of the countries that do not belong. For example, Brazil, Canada, Jordan, Russia and Spain do not belong."

Among the countries that have signed the protocol are Australia, Britain, Germany and Japan.

Ms. Jordan said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, of the move on Monday.

Harold Hongju Koh, the dean of the Yale Law School and a former State Department official in the Clinton administration, said the Bush administration's strategy was counterproductive.

"International adjudication is an important tool in a post-cold-war, post-9/11 world," Dean Koh said.

For 40 years, from 1946 to 1986, the United States accepted the general jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in all kinds of cases against other nations that had also agreed to the court's jurisdiction. After an unfavorable ruling from the court in 1986 over the mining of Nicaragua's harbors, the United States withdrew from the court's general jurisdiction.

But it continued to accept its jurisdiction under about 70 specific treaties, including the protocol withdrawn from on Monday, said Lori F. Damrosch, a law professor at Columbia. The other treaties cover subjects like navigation, terrorism, narcotics and copyrights, and they are unaffected.

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case of José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican on death row in Texas, on March 28. Mr. Medellín asks the court to enforce last year's judgment of the international tribunal. Texas opposes the request.

When the federal government filed its supporting brief for Texas in the case at the end of last month, it appended the memorandum from the president to the attorney general.

Before the administration's strategy came into focus, international law professors greeted the memorandum with amazement.

"This is a president who has been openly hostile to international law and international institutions knuckling under, and knuckling under where there are significant federalism concerns," Professor Spiro said.

As it turned out, Dean Koh said, the government had "an integrated strategy."

"Element 1," he continued, "was to take the bat out of the Supreme Court's hand."

Lawyers for Mr. Medellín reacted cautiously. In a motion filed in the Supreme Court yesterday, Donald F. Donovan, a lawyer with the New York law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, asked the court to put off hearing argument until Texas state courts could consider Mr. Medellín's claim.

For their part, Texas prosecutors have not conceded that the president has the power to force courts there to reopen the Medellín case.

In a statement, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Abbott of Texas, questioned the president's authority.

"The State of Texas believes no international court supersedes the laws of Texas or the laws of the United States," Mr. Strickland said. "We respectfully believe the executive determination exceeds the constitutional bounds for federal authority."

Sandra Babcock, a Minnesota lawyer who represents the government of Mexico, said she had no doubt that the president was authorized to instruct state courts to reopen Mr. Medellín's case and 50 others.

"The law is on our side," Ms. Babcock said. "The president is on our side. I keep having to slap myself."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 1986; aliens; babcock; capitalpunishment; courtofjustice; courts; crime; crybabies; deathpenalty; deathrow; debevoiseplimpton; donalddonovan; donaldfdonovan; dondonovan; donfdonovan; donovan; exodus20; geopolitics; haroldhongjukoh; haroldkoh; harryhongjukoh; harrykoh; icc; icj; international; internationalcourt; joseernestomedellin; josemedellin; josernestomedelln; josmedelln; koh; medellin; medelln; meowmix007; mexico; murder; nicaragua; petejspiro; peterjspiro; peterspiro; petespiro; rats; sandrababcock; scotus; sorelosers; sovereignity; spiro; statesrights; swiftsurepunishment; texas; thehague; un; unitednations; usa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-231 next last

1 posted on 03/09/2005 8:35:05 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Hallelujah!
Hallelujah!
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Ha-le-eh-luh-jah!


2 posted on 03/09/2005 8:37:49 PM PST by TitansAFC (When will Kristen Breitweiser just declare her candidacy already?!?!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"It's a sore-loser kind of move," Professor Spiro said. "If we can't win, we're not going to play."


What an idiot!

This isn't a game, the other sides don't play fair, and the stakes are high. It is NOT a game!


3 posted on 03/09/2005 8:38:10 PM PST by adam_az (UN out of the US! - http://www.moveamericaforward.org/?Page=Petition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Ping


4 posted on 03/09/2005 8:38:25 PM PST by MJY1288 (Authoritarian rule is not the wave of the future; it is the last gasp of a discredited past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Now if only we would withdraw from the U.N.


5 posted on 03/09/2005 8:38:31 PM PST by teenyelliott (Soylent green is made of liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial... 'Sharia'... Body?

/Air-Strip One

6 posted on 03/09/2005 8:38:39 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at the University of Georgia, said the withdrawal was unbecoming.

Sounds like Spiro is a typical Dimwit pinko prof with his panties in a bunch over W taking action to protect U.S. interests from frogs.

7 posted on 03/09/2005 8:39:13 PM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good decision


8 posted on 03/09/2005 8:39:19 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It's about time we hoisted the finger in this way.


9 posted on 03/09/2005 8:39:36 PM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
Now if only we would withdraw from the U.N.

One step in front of the other,my friend, one step in front of the other.

10 posted on 03/09/2005 8:41:20 PM PST by yankeedame ("Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"It's a sore-loser kind of move," Professor Spiro said. "If we can't win, we're not going to play."

It is actually much simplier than that professor. American justice we be decided by American processes and not by foreign bodies.


11 posted on 03/09/2005 8:41:22 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

LOL


12 posted on 03/09/2005 8:41:59 PM PST by Walkingfeather (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case of José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican on death row in Texas, on March 28. Mr. Medellín asks the court to enforce last year's judgment of the international tribunal. Texas opposes the request."

BUMPMARKED
13 posted on 03/09/2005 8:42:09 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

GREAT NEWS! Thanks for the post!


14 posted on 03/09/2005 8:44:57 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"It's a sore-loser kind of move," Professor Spiro said. "If we can't win, we're not going to play."

Not really. Sore Loserman was refusing to be "out"and let the game go on without you.

A rather stupid analogy on the professor's part. Its about sovereignty.

15 posted on 03/09/2005 8:46:50 PM PST by Ruth A.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ntnychik; devolve; MeekOneGOP; Happy2BMe; PhilDragoo; Smartass

PING


16 posted on 03/09/2005 8:48:19 PM PST by potlatch (Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
We are protecting against future International Court of Justice judgments

Who needs international courts when our very own SC Justice Kennedy interprets the U.S. Constitution based on foreign laws--and the SCOTUS majority agrees?

17 posted on 03/09/2005 8:49:38 PM PST by NautiNurse (Osama bin Laden has more tapes than Steely Dan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible; Hoplite

FREE SLOBO!!!


18 posted on 03/09/2005 8:49:53 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting johnathangaltfilms.com and jihadwatch.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial Body

Excellent start...Next stop:

U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From UN

19 posted on 03/09/2005 8:51:13 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"It's a sore-loser kind of move," Professor Spiro said. "If we can't win, we're not going to play."

No, Professor, its a "If you think you're going to use this as your forum to constantly bash and attack the U.S., we're not obliged to accomodate you."


20 posted on 03/09/2005 8:51:34 PM PST by G Larry (Aggressively promote conservative judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-231 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson