In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Recent Posts

25 Mar

As lead counsel on the scholars’ amicus brief in support of Texas, I am not entirely unbiased here. But when one can get scholars with as diverse views of executive power as John Yoo and Erwin Chemerinsky to sign on to a brief arguing that the President has gone too far, it shouldn’t be entirely surprising to find that...

|
25 Mar

[Mark Movsesian is the Frederick A. Whitney Professor of Contract Law at St. John's University School of Law.] Thanks to Chris for inviting me to say a few quick words about today’s very significant decision. Hooray for Dualism: Just as he did two years ago in Sanchez-Llamas, CJ Roberts endorsed a dualist approach to the judgments of international tribunals....

|
25 Mar

A first read through the Medellín opinions leads to tentative observations, subject to revision: • Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the Court is modest and fairly careful. He does not articulate a presumption against self-enforcement, or offer a general interpretive template. The analysis of the Optional Protocol and the UN Charter is specific to those two instruments. As my prior briefs and...

|
25 Mar

There is a way in which the Medellin decision fits very nicely with our discussion last week about congressional-executive agreements. Like Oona’s article, the decision in Medellin is very pro-Congress. The Court’s finding of non-self-execution means that it is reserving to Congress the determinations of whether and how to comply with the ICJ decision. Similarly, the Court’s...

|
25 Mar

First, my thanks to Kevin, Peggy, and the OJ crew for a chance to post my own initial reaction to Medellín. Leaving the international law to the international law scholars, and the Court’s odd parsing of the VCCR’s ratification history to those who are more familiar with it, my own interest in the Chief Justice’s majority opinion in Medellín is...

|
25 Mar

My former boss and Medellin's counsel Donald Donovan (of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP) sends out this reaction to the Medelllin decision. Donald Francis Donovan of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, counsel to petitioner Jose Ernesto Medellín, in response to the March 25, 2008 decision of the United States Supreme Court in MEDELLIN v. TEXAS: We are disappointed in the Supreme Court's...

|
25 Mar

As the early analysis starts to pour in on the Supreme Court's Medellin opinion, I did a quick scan of the headlines. As I have argued here and here, the case is, at bottom, about the persistence of the death penalty in the U.S. and the efforts of close allies and neighbors of the U.S. to do something about...

|
25 Mar

The Supreme Court's Medellin decision today brings to an end a fascinating decade-long series of interactions between the U.S. Supreme Court, the International Court of Justice, and various state governments. Beginning in 1998, the Supreme Court has now weighed in four times on the ICJ's various interpretations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the UN Charter, and the...

|
25 Mar

Thanks to Marty for his pointer on the decision and his instant analysis (which despite being instant, is also still quite interesting). Throughout the day today and into tomorrow, Opinio Juris will post thoughts and comments on the Medellin decision from leading commentators and scholars, in addition to (of course, our substantial "in-blog" expertise. Stay tuned!...

|
25 Mar

Six to three. The decision is here. My very quick and preliminary reaction, after having read only a bit of the opinion, is that the presidential power question is not the most important aspect of the opinion. That would be, instead, the Court's interpretation of Article 94 of the U.N. Charter as merely imposing a future obligation...

|