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U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial Body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for 51 Mexicans on death rows in the United States, the State Department said yesterday that the United States had withdrawn from the protocol that gave the tribunal jurisdiction to hear such disputes.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 previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-231 next last
To: Havoc
Read sometime the Oath of Office for the POTUS sometime.

It is the President's job description.

161 posted on 03/10/2005 12:07:04 PM PST by Happy2BMe (Government is not the solution to our problem, government *IS* the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: 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.

YES!!! Why were we even IN this tribunal?

162 posted on 03/10/2005 12:11:50 PM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse

The point is he never said any opinion was BASED on international whatever just that they found the Teenage Killer case "consistent" with international whatever. They didn't even need to do that since 1) teenage killers are almost never executed anyway or sentenced to death and 2) many states have no death penalty for anyone.

The Justices don't need to look abroad to make bad law (unfortunately.)


163 posted on 03/10/2005 12:31:50 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

That is false read the ruling if you care to be accurate. He never said any rulings have been "BASED" upon international law.


164 posted on 03/10/2005 12:34:14 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but hasn't the Supreme Court pretty much been a branch of the world court?


165 posted on 03/10/2005 12:35:36 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

One thing at a time.

It may require the election of a 3rd Bush.

166 posted on 03/10/2005 12:40:06 PM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ruth A.
"It's a sore-loser kind of move," Professor Spiro said.
sore-loser? . Prof. Spiro, are you a FR lurker?
167 posted on 03/10/2005 12:50:00 PM PST by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | 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."

The "game" is over. We won.
168 posted on 03/10/2005 12:53:59 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

Clever, very clever. Diabolical, really.


169 posted on 03/10/2005 1:03:08 PM PST by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - do the research, contact your legislators, get this puppy passed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
The Justices don't need to look abroad to make bad law (unfortunately.)

No, they don't--but Kennedy did just that--at the very least to bolster his opinion and/or to make himself feel better.

170 posted on 03/10/2005 1:09:29 PM PST by NautiNurse (Osama bin Laden has more tapes than Steely Dan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Justice Scalia seemed to think otherwise. Read his opinion.


171 posted on 03/10/2005 1:13:21 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse

I see no damage in pointing out that the opinion was consistent with views currently held around the world. I don't particularly care but it doesn't hurt anything.


172 posted on 03/10/2005 1:18:37 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench

I was just commenting on what Kennedy actually said in the opinion as opposed to the misimpression which is widespread here.


173 posted on 03/10/2005 1:19:50 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

I like Scalia's opinion better.


174 posted on 03/10/2005 1:25:49 PM PST by NautiNurse (Osama bin Laden has more tapes than Steely Dan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse

I do not agree with the ruling either. But I fear we are a minority within the country.


175 posted on 03/10/2005 1:45:27 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

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


These people are everywhere..on a positive note--they are being exposed.Thank You Gore ,,for the internet.


176 posted on 03/10/2005 1:55:27 PM PST by southronbtgoG (GRITS-----what more can you say......DEO-VINDICE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This kind of unilateralism annoys the bologna out of the Euros. However, the Euros have been doing their own international unilateralism for decades, so they can't play the moral superiority card.


177 posted on 03/10/2005 1:57:26 PM PST by RightWhale (Please correct if cosmic balance requires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maestro

'Sharia' has a death penalty.


178 posted on 03/10/2005 2:02:28 PM PST by mellyK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

---"I don't mean to rain on your parade, but hasn't the Supreme Court pretty much been a branch of the world court?"---

Yup. But we can correct that via the process. We cannot, however, exert any influence over a "world court."

I'm still happy. Long way to go, though.....


179 posted on 03/10/2005 2:07:11 PM PST by TitansAFC (When will Kristen Breitweiser just declare her candidacy already?!?!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Yes! Thank you President Bush.


180 posted on 03/10/2005 2:28:32 PM PST by Zoey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 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