08 Mar My Latest Blast at Judicial Treaty Activism
Opinio Juris readers enjoy (or suffer) through my views on international law stuff on a near-daily basis. Today, readers of the LA Times get the same (questionable) benefit in the form of my op-ed about the Supreme Court’s cases assessing whether the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations creates a judicially enforceable private right of action.
(Unhappily, the headline for the article is not what I would have chosen. I don’t mind treaties “trumping” U.S. law. I would only require the treaty be clear that it is doing so.)
LA Times readers don’t get to benefit from a blog’s links, however, so here are a few links for any readers of my op-ed who want to find out more about the case.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36
The amicus brief in favor of the respondent states Virginia and Oregon, written by Prof. Paul Stephan of UVA and signed by ten law professors.
UPDATE: For the other sides’ view of these cases, see a collection of briefs in the case here.
Other posts on the subject are chained below…
“Treaties are often unfairly viewed with suspicion because of fears that future courts will expand them far beyond the intentions of those who created the treaty.”
Unfairly viewed? You, the foremost advocate of the self-executing doctrine, who goes out of his way in defending it (i.e., see amicus brief in a case where people face not jail or monetary damages, but death), dare say that? Your sense of irony makes me sick. Why don’t you ask the defendants and their families if they think your writing style is humorous? Don’t forget to look at them in the eye when you do so.
How is the US upholding its treaty obligations granting ‘extra rights’ to foreigners accused of crimes in the US? This reasoning is ludicrous. US citizens accused of crimes in the US aren’t being denied the right to contact their consular officers. They aren’t being shortchanged b/c it is a moot point.
And for you to argue that the treaty intended to establish a ‘right’ for the consular officer is disingenuous and absurdist. Obviously, the whole point behind the relevant clause is motivated by concern for individuals who finds themselves at the mercy of a foreign judicial system. To argue otherwise is dishonest.
As far as it ‘trumping’ US law, please re-read Article 6, Clause 2. And yes, state judges are bound by it if SCOTUS accepts your opponent’s interpretation.