Consular Relations Research Articles

PERLINDUNGAN WARGA NEGARA DALAM PERBANDINGAN

With the advancement of globalization, the rate of migration of people from one nations to another nations is getting higher. This might result in causing the problems for those migratingpeople in the destination countries. Most of these problems related to the violation of the destination’s state immigration rules, for example, illegal entry, forged passport, and so forth. Providing protection to its citizens who are coping with problems abroad is one of the state’s obligations. Fulfilling this specific obligation is not a simple task for states. Therefore, all states would put high priority to this duty. In dealing with this matter, most states refer to the existing international convention, such as the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as well as the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. However, some states need more than these international conventions to solve the problem. Some states would have a bilateral arrangement to provide protection to their own citizens. These arrangements could touch upon very specific matters to ease the potential problems. This article would describe the protection programs in Indonesia, Japan and the Philippines. In providing protection for their citizens, each country stipulates their basic policy uniquely, based on their political, economic and socio-cultural interests.

The 2004 Record of the International Court of Justice

This article presents a concise overview of developments relating to the International Court of Justice (ICJ or “the Court”) during 2004, using the General List, Orders, Judgments and Advisory Opinions issued, pleadings filed and hearings held at the Peace Palace in The Hague to describe the Court's most recent record.1 In 2004, the ICJ handed down eight judgments in related cases brought by Serbia and Montenegro against eight NATO Member States, dismissing all of them for lack of jurisdiction. Another judgment in a case between Mexico and the United States found the United States to be in breach of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in connection with certain US capital punishment cases involving Mexican nationals on death row in US prisons. Pursuant to a request of the United Nations General Assembly, the Court also issued an advisory opinion finding that the construction by Israel of a separation barrier in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and its associated regime are contrary to international law.

Domesticating International Obligations: How to Ensure U.S. Compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

Domesticating International Obligations: How to Ensure U.S. Compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

Domesticating International Obligations: How to Ensure U.S. Compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

Domesticating International Obligations: How to Ensure U.S. Compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

Consular Assistance: Rights, Remedies and Responsibility: Comments on the ICJ's Judgment in the LaGrand Case

The International Court of Justice, in a landmark ruling in the LaGrand case, 1 held that interim orders under Article 41 of its Statute impose binding legal obligations upon the parties to the dispute. Quite apart from this controversial conclusion, the judgment is remarkable in a number of other respects. In the circumstances of the case, Germany had asked the Court to declare that the United States' treatment of two German nationals, Karl and Walter LaGrand, was in violation of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). The two brothers had been arrested in 1982 for various crimes, including murder, and were subsequently tried and sentenced to death by US courts. In the course of the proceedings, they had not been informed of their right, as guaranteed by Article 36 of the VCCR, to seek consular assistance. In its first claim (see paras 65-78), Germany contended that this omission not only violated its own rights as a state party to the Convention — a violation that the US conceded — but also the individual rights of the two brothers. The Court granted this claim, thereby recognizing that Article 36 of the Convention protects individual rights. Its decision affirms the view that under modern international law, individual rights need not necessarily derive from classical human rights treaties, but are a pervasive phenomenon — a view that was recently also held by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). 2 While the IACHR however went on to discuss the relation between individual rights to consular assistance and procedural human rights, the ICJ stopped short of recognizing that Article 36 of the VCCR was a human right, thereby prudently avoiding a politicization of the dispute. In its second claim (paras 79-91), Germany alleged that the United States had violated its duty to effectively implement the right to consular assistance. Under the

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Private Enforcement in American Courts after LaGrand

On June 27, 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held in the case of Germany v. United States of America (LaGrand) that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) affords an individually enforceable right to consular access upon arrest or detention in a foreign country.1 In the United States, death penalty opponents applauded the ICJ's finding for its promise of greater due process protection, while states' rights advocates criticized the decision as an unlawful exercise of criminal appellate jurisdiction. LaGrand, in theory, resolves many questions that have plagued American courts: whether Article 36 rights are vested in an individual or a signatory state; whether the right may be privately enforced; whether domestic procedural rules may bar Article 36 claims in certain circumstances; and whether the ICJ's provisional measures are binding upon member states. The LaGrand opinion, however, leaves unclear as many issues as it clarifies. Procedurally, LaGrand has enormous implications for American criminal courts if taken at its word. Yet it remains to be seen how, and if, the American courts will incorporate the ICJ's decision in LaGrand into their jurisprudence. The United States Supreme Court has yet to address the LaGrand issues in a comprehensive manner.2 As a result, courts vary widely in

The Role of International Law in United States Death Penalty Cases

The United States has repeatedly failed to notify detained foreign nationals of their rights to consular notification and access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In capital cases, US non-compliance with this ratified Treaty has led to litigation by foreign governments and individual lawyers in domestic courts and international tribunals. While these efforts have had mixed results in individual cases, litigation by Mexico, Germany and other actors has led to increased compliance with Article 36, and a growing recognition of the significance of US treaty obligations.

International Remedies in National Criminal Cases: ICJ Judgment in Germany v. United States

In Germany v. United States (2001), the International Court of Justice ruled that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations confers judicially enforceable rights on foreign nationals detained for prolonged periods or sentenced to severe penalties without notice of their right to communicate with their consulates. The Court also ruled that states which fail to give timely notice cannot later invoke procedural default to bar individuals from judicial relief. However, the Court did not clearly address other issues, such as requiring individuals to show prejudice to the outcome of the trial, or denial of certain remedies for Convention violations, which may effectively foreclose relief.

Due Process and the Right to Life in the Context of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Arguing the LaGrand Case

The LaGrand case, currently under deliberation at the International Court of Justice, encapsulates a number of problems cutting across key areas of international law. The dispute, which arose out of the United States' failure of consular notification in violation of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, originated within a context that compelled Germany and the Court itself to act in an unprecedented manner. The life of a man in imminent danger prompted Germany 'to sue its close ally, the United States' and the Court to act within hours after it had been seised on 2 March 1999, issuing for the first time an Order on provisional measures proprio motu and without having held a hearing. 1 Indeed, although the case has at its core the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, it involves legal proceedings that led to the deprivation of life of two German nationals: Karl and Walter LaGrand. The first died executed by lethal injection and the second in the gas chamber of the state of Arizona. As a result, the parties met in relation to a dispute which, although it '(did) not concern the international legality vel non of the death penalty as such', was surrounded by facts that made it impossible to insulate the provision at stake from its possible bearing on individual rights: namely on the right to due process and, ultimately, on the right to life in the context of the death penalty. Two opposite views of international law appeared from the arguments of the parties. For the United States international law consists of a myriad of watertight compartments: at the level of sources, treaty law and customary international law have separate existences and thus one excludes the application of the other; at the level of rights and

The United States and Its Treaties: Observance and Breach

The commitment of the United States to its treaty obligations has recently been put in question by two persistent histories of treaty violation—the refusal to pay U.S. United Nations dues in full until the contentious and tenuous settlement of early 2001 and the repeated failure to advise alien prisoners of their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Official advocacy of an antimissile defense system has also raised concern about the United States’ continuing fidelity to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

1International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — Requirement of prima facie basis for jurisdiction on the merits — Whether Court possessing compulsory jurisdiction — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Article I of the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1963 — Criteria for indicating measures — Risk of irreparable damage to rights — Urgency — Whether grave and exceptional circumstances requiring Court to indicate measures for a stay of execution — Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 41Consular relations — Right of access to consul for person arrested — Paraguayan national sentenced to death by court in United States of America — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Article 36(1) (b) — Failure of arresting authorities to inform of right to contact Paraguayan consulate — Effect of non-notification — Whether United States of America violating its international legal obligations with respect to Vienna Convention — Whether Paraguay entitled to remedy restitutio in integrum under Vienna Convention

LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America)

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — Requirement of prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Criteria for indication of provisional measures — Risk of irreparable damage to rights — Urgency — Whether Court entitled to grant measures without hearing in case of extreme urgency — Death penalty case — Measures granted against federal State regarding acts to be taken by constituent State of federationConsular relations — Right of access to consul — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36 — Optional Protocol — German national sentenced to death in the United States of America — Failure to inform of right of access to consul — Whether violation of Article 36 — Whether violation invalidating death sentence

Federal Republic of Germany v. United States of America and Others

Consular relations — Right of access to consul — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36 — Optional Protocol — German national sentenced to death in the United States of America — Failure to inform of right of access to consul — Whether violation of Article 36 — Whether violation invalidating death sentence53Relationship of international law and municipal law — Order of International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — International Court granting measures indicating that United States of America should not proceed with execution — United States Government under obligation to transmit Order to Governor of State where execution to take place — Effect in United States law — The law of the United States of America

Individual rights under Vienna Convention on Consular Relations—duty to inform detained foreign nationals of right to seek consular assistance—protections against arbitrary deprivation of life—advisory jurisdiction of Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Individual rights under Vienna Convention on Consular Relations—duty to inform detained foreign nationals of right to seek consular assistance—protections against arbitrary deprivation of life—advisory jurisdiction of Inter-American Court of Human Rights - Volume 94 Issue 3

El incumplimiento de las ordenanzas sobre medidas provisionales de la Corte Internacional de Justicia: el caso LaGrand

Numero 98 Mayo - Agosto 2000 Nueva Serie Ano XXXIII ISSN 0041 8633 EL INCUMPLIMIENTO DE LAS ORDENANZAS SOBRE MEDIDAS PROVISIONALES DE LA CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTICIA: EL CASO LAGRAND Soledad TORRECUADRADA GARCIA-LOZANO In this work, the author analyses from a legal-international perspective, problems related to the Viena Convention on consular relations. In order to do so, the author studies the LaGrand case. She refers to the facts that originated the sentence of the LaGrand brothers, who were executed in Arizona during the first quarter of 1999, infringing an order of the International Court of Justice. The study also refers to the procee-dings before the Court, and to the content of the resolution issued by it. Finally, the article makes some considerations about the provisional measures issued by the Court, and the legal effects of the Courts orders. * Nota: Debido que la traduccion es automatica podra ser inexacta o contener errores.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations—consular access to detained nationals—International Court of Justice—provisional measures—original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations—consular access to detained nationals—International Court of Justice—provisional measures—original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court

“An apology does not assist the accused”: Foreign nationals and the death penalty in the United States

Over 70 foreign nationals are on death row in the United States. Under the terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1969, any foreign national arrested in the United States must be informed of his right to contact and receive assistance from his consulate. American authorities have failed to comply with the Vienna Convention in the vast majority of such cases, including all eight executions of foreign nationals carried out under current laws. This paper reviews the issues raised by American violations of the Vienna Convention, the cases of several condemned foreigners, the rulings of American courts and of the International Court of Justice in the case of Angel Francisco Breard, and possible remedies.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguayv.United States of America) (“Breard”) and Lagrand (Germanyv.United States of America), Applications for Provisional Measures

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Interim measures of protection for rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

The number of requests for interim orders of protection registered with the International Court of Justice showed a marked increase between 1990 and 1999. Despite the growing resort to this remedy, the full legal significance of ICJ interim measures remains a matter of continuing debate. The recent requests for and responses to ICJ interim measures to protect rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Breard and LaGrand cases) have rekindled the debate as to the binding nature of such orders. Through a review of these recent cases, this article argues that the text of Article 41 alone of the Statute of the ICJ, under which interim orders are made, is an insufficient guide to the legal effect of the orders made thereunder. Despite the imprecision of the language of Article 41, there is adequate evidence based on the principles of interpretation to lend weight to the binding nature of ICJ provisional measures. It is clear from the review of the cases that the direct impact of provisional measures on the protection of human rights makes this conclusion a compelling one. The article also reviews the consequences of the United States' response to the ICJ orders.

The British consulate‐general in Hanoi, 1954–73

Traditionally, there has been a rigid distinction made between British consular and diplomatic missions abroad: the former is concerned largely with trade, visas and the more mundane tasks of foreign representation, while the latter deals with the glamorous political world of interstate relationships at the highest level. As a general rule of thumb this may be true, but in accepting unequivocally this notion one overlooks those instances where a significant political role has been played by consulates. This article examines one such instance and in doing so raises questions relating to diplomatic and consular relations, disguised embassies, political reporting and the importance of experienced onsite personnel.