Why Training Journalists in International Law is a Good Thing

The American Society of International Law has recently begun partnering with journalism schools in an effort to introduce international law to future reporters and editorial boards. And, publications like ASIL Insightsand IL.Post are circulated broadly among media outlets, and ASIL makes the expertise of its membership available when issues or cases arise in which explanations of the law can be helpful. But, as Jose Alvarez noted in this interview with the State Department Information Service, we still have a way to go. This recent editorial about Medellin v. Texas in the Augusta Chronicle is a case in point. How many errors can you spot in this piece?

The Right Ruling
Supreme Court Renders Sound Judgment in Standing up for Sovereignty
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Friday, April 18, 2008

Americans have had their quarrels with many past U.S. Supreme Court rulings, but the Supremes certainly got it right in Medellin v. the State of Texas. Despite opposition from the Bush administration, and many in Congress, the justices affirmed U.S. sovereignty over the World Court.

The case involved Jose Medellin, a Mexican native who along with five other gang members was convicted in a Houston, Texas, court 15 years ago of the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls. Medellin’s death sentence was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court, but in 2003 the Mexican government got involved, taking the case to the International Court of Justice, recently renamed the World Court.

Mexico charged that Medellin’s rights were violated because at no point during his arrest and trial was he informed that under the Vienna Convention – an international treaty signed by the United States in 1963 – he could get legal assistance from the Mexican consulate.

The international court ruled that the United States violated the terms of the treaty, and ordered U.S. courts to review and reconsider not only Medellin’s conviction, but also that of 50 other Mexican-born convicts on death row throughout the nation. President Bush agreed, and told state courts to comply with the international court’s edict – in effect, subordinating U.S. law to a foreign jurisdiction.

Texas wasted no time in appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently ruled in Texas’ favor. Writing for the justices’ 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that U.S. courts are not always obligated to enforce international law – that “the judgments of an international tribunal” do not have “a higher status than that enjoyed by many of our most fundamental constitutional protections.”

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz put the ruling in proper perspective: “The United States Constitution vests sovereignty in the Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the president, the 50 states and, ultimately, in we the people. Had Medellin prevailed, American sovereignty and independence would have been gravely undermined.”

Indeed, it would have been – and shame on the three dissenting justices and President Bush for not understanding that.

To be sure, some of the mistakes could have been avoided with basic fact checking. But I have to believe that more knowledge of the field would be a good thing.