ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> The Faculty Lounge

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Academic

: The Faculty Lounge

Medellin: Treaties and Domestic Law

By Calvin Massey

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Supreme Court's decision today in Medellin settles some issues but leaves others in abeyance.   If there was ever much doubt that a non-self-executing treaty is not enforceable as domestic law without legislation to do so, there isn't any doubt now.   Yet, despite the conclusion that the President lacked authority to make the ICJ judgment in Avena binding on the states, one must still wonder whether there are circumstances beyond international claims settlement coupled with diplomatic recognition (Pink  and Belmont) that endow the President with authority to make international obligations binding on the states.   While Chief Justice Roberts notes that is untenable to assert that the President never has unilateral authority under Article II to displace state law pursuant to a ratified treaty, it's pretty clear that the President lacks such authority with respect to a ratified non-self-executing treaty.  That makes a lot ride on whether a treaty is self-executing and that question is largely a matter of the text of the treaty.  Unless a treaty says it is self-executing with respect to a member state's domestic law it isn't self-executing.  True, the majority's analysis isn't quite this simple, but it is a heavily textual approach. 

Questions for the future are legion.  Here's just one: Suppose that Congress enacts legislation that makes the consular access provisions of the Vienna Convention binding on the states, and suppose that in a future ICJ decision that court rules that the remedy for a violation of the consular access provisions by Texas, with respect to a Muslim citizen of a nation that recognizes Sharia in its own courts, is a new trial in Texas under Sharia.  Does Reid v. Covert  operate to bar this remedy because it is a violation of the Establishment Clause, or does Missouri v. Holland control? After all, the specific treaty that Congress acted to enforce in this hypo "does not contravene any prohibitory words . . . in the Constitution."  Elizpena

......That's Elizabeth Pena, age 16, murdered by Medellin.

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on March 25, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0155 secs (new cache)