Consular Relations Research Articles

Toward an International Law for Ungoverned Spaces

UNGOVERNED SPACES, STRICTLY DEFINED AS SPACES NOT EFFECTIVELY GOVERNED by the state, exist all over the world, presenting particular difficulties to public international law that is historically premised on sovereignty and state control. Notorious examples of such spaces include south-central Somalia and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border. These spaces destabilize the international system in novel ways--and they might also be dangerous. Many of the terrorism plots from the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries emanated from safe havens afforded by ungoverned The lack of governance over certain spaces also raises concerns about development, including the health, education, human rights, and economic welfare of affected populations. In a 2010 article in Foreign Affairs, Michael Crawford and Jami Miscik identify the emergence of mezzanine actors within ungoverned spaces, who insert themselves at the level between the government and the people. (1) These actors--such as Hezbollah, the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban, al-Qaeda, al Shabaab, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani network, and the Islamic State, to name a few--operate in a legal netherworld outside the control of domestic legislation and free from the responsibility of international rules. In order to respond to the challenges posed, Crawford and Miscik call on governments to work over time to recast the international legal environment and modernize international law so that it addresses the problem of ungoverned spaces. (2) To date, this challenge remains unanswered. In dealing with ungoverned spaces, states and international organizations continue to cling to outmoded rules of international law. Powerful governments use these rules to their advantage, justifying interventions or making unequal bargains with their weaker counterparts. Meanwhile, desperate leaders, seeking to maintain their formal position, mock the rules by asserting sovereignty over spaces completely outside their effective control. Civilian populations are caught in the middle, bereft of the support they deserve from formal institutions, and left to the whims of informal actors. Hearts of Darkness Ungoverned spaces are often portrayed as a threat to international security; however, the issue is much more pervasive. States that lack an effective government are unable to provide for their citizens. Building codes are ignored and sanitation services are discontinued. Borders and coastlines are left unpatrolled. Unfettered transnational corporations act with impunity, effectively outside of anyone's jurisdictional control. Collectively these symptoms have obvious internal effects, but they also apply externally. The lack of an effective government makes treaty making, treaty compliance, and requests for assistance from international development organizations a practical impossibility. Diplomatic and consular relations also break down when sending states recall their representatives. Such externalities isolate the receiving state and exacerbate the negative effects of ungoverned space. Existing governance arrangements provided by international and domestic law fail to address in full any of these potential challenges to the international system. Another misperception about ungoverned space is that it is limited to remote inaccessible territory of the type made infamous by al-Qaeda and al Shabaab. In fact, ungoverned spaces are as likely to emerge in the middle of metropolitan areas--think of the Tower of David in Caracas or the favelas in Rio de Janiero--as they are in mountain or desert redoubts. Furthermore, with the advent of the Internet and other information technologies, much of the man-made virtual space has eluded centralized state or governmental control. Operational zones, such as those applicable to private military contractors or corporations operating transnationally, are often formally regulated but functionally lawless. …

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: In Retrospect and into the Future

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations has served the international community well by bringing clarity to the norms governing the activity of consular officers. It has had major impact in the protective activities of consuls, in particular in their protection for nationals arrested on a criminal charge in the receiving state.

Human Rights in State Courts 2014

The Opportunity Agenda and the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy of Northeastern University School of Law have released a new report, Human Rights in State Courts 2014. The report reviews state court decisions and Attorneys General opinions interpreting human rights treaties, laws, and standards.Since the last version of this report was released in 2011, litigants have continued to use international human rights law in their arguments before state courts. In fact, the range of cases in which international law arguments are offered seems to have increased, now encompassing environmental claims, tort cases, and guardianship matters. Many of these arguments have been cursorily dismissed, with a few courts and individual judges staking out their opposition to the application of international human rights law. However, some state courts have considered and affirmatively used international law as persuasive authority for the interpretation of state constitutions, statutes, and common law. Further, individual judges regularly draw on human rights norms in concurring or dissenting opinions.This updated publication includes previously reported cases as well as those that have been decided since the 2011 edition. Highlights of the new report include the following developments:-The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gave retroactive effect to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sentencing a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional, citing international law in support.-A Maryland Court of Appeals considered the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and its recognition of the right to “family life” as a marker of fundamental fairness, when deciding upon a due process challenge to a guardianship proceeding.-The Tennessee Attorney General addressed international human rights law when a state representative inquired as to whether a bill to prohibit and criminalize observation of state elections by United Nations (U.N.) officials violated the United States Constitution. The Attorney General determined that the bill would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and noted that U.N. officials would be immune from prosecution under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, to which the United States is a party.-A dissenting judge in an Iowa Supreme Court decision, addressing the right to education under the state constitution, would have used the human rights norms as a tool for interpreting the Iowa constitution. The dissent cited the UDHR for the proposition that education is essential to the development of an autonomous individual with dignity.-State courts continued to consider claims arising under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, generally finding that the treaty does not grant defendants the right to any actual assistance by consular officials, as opposed to a right to consular notification.-There continue to be a host of cases citing the Hague Service Convention for guidelines to proper service of process between parties residing in signatory countries. Additionally, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction continues to play a substantial role in guiding courts in child custody hearings.-Regional international norms articulated by the Inter-American system figured in several cases. For example, a Connecticut Superior Court utilized the Inter-American Convention on Letters of Rogatory and Additional Protocol to impose proper service of process when it found that protocols under the Hague Service Convention were not applicable.-A New York court stated that while the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is not binding under New York law, the international adoption of a guarantee of legal capacity for all persons is entitled to persuasive weight in the interpretation of local laws.

Illegality of Actions of the Russian Federation with Regard to the Vessel Arctic Sunrise

Recent actions by agents of the Russian Federation (Russia) in connection with the Greenpeace vessel ARCTIC SUNRISE (IMO: 7382902, Flag: Netherlands) in the Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone raise a number of issues under international law. From the information publicly available at this time, it appears that Russia has disregarded several of its international obligations in order to force environmental activists to end peaceful protests. On Wednesday, 18 September 2013, activists from the ARCTIC SUNRISE staged a protest at the oil rig PRIRAZLOMNAYA, which is located in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation. The activists and vessel were forced away from the area by Russian agents who fired a several weapons, including automatic firearms in the vicinity of inflatable boats used by the Greenpeace activists. Said inflatable boats were also rammed and slashed. On Thursday, 19 September 2013, the ARCTIC SUNRISE was taken over by armed Russian agents inside Russia’s EEZ. The crew was detained. Russia’s actions with regard to the ARCTIC SUNRISE are incompatible with the international law of the sea as codified in the Law of the Sea Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and possibly other international treaties. It appears that Russia has violated the human rights of the crew members as well as rights of the flag State (Netherlands) and of the crew members‘ respective home States. In order to comply with international law, Russia has to ensure the speedy release of the vessel and its crew.

Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2012

This Survey covers materials reflecting Chinese practice in 2012 relating to: I. Fundamental principles of international law; II. Rule of law at the national and international levels; III. Sources of international law (provisional application of treaties; formation and evidence of customary international law); IV. Recognition of new States and governments (Palestine; Kosovo; the new Libyan government); V. Jurisdiction and immunity (Supreme People's Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment to the 1979 Criminal Procedural Code; Case concerning the 5 October Massacre in Mekong River committed by Sai Naw Kham, Hsang Kham, Yi Lai, Zha Xika, Zha Bo and Zha Tuobo); VI. China's territorial integrity (Taiwan; Tibet; China–India agreement on the establishment of a working mechanism for consultation and co-ordination on India–China border affairs; Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands; Huangyan Island; Xisha Islands; Nansha Islands; Establishment of Sansha Municipality); VII. Polar regions (Arctic Council); VIII. International Law of the Sea (Baselines of the territorial sea adjacent to Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands; Selection, defininition and protection of the Protection Scope of Territorial Sea Base Points; Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in part of the East China Sea; Revised Regulations on Administration of Coastal Border Security of Hainan Province; Suyan Rock; Okinotori Reef; Marine environment; Marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction; Sustainable fisheries; Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; International Seabed Authority; International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; Fight against piracy); IX. International law on outer space (Militarization of and arms race in outer space; Space debris; International co-operation in peaceful uses of outer space); X. Aliens (Act on Administration of Exit and Entry; 72-hour visa-free travel to Beijing and Shanghai; Draft articles on expulsion of aliens; Refugees); XI. International human rights law (Human rights and the principle of non-interference of internal affairs; Human rights, politicization and double Standards; Human rights and national conditions; Right to survival and right to development; Human security; Discrimination and racism; Right to self-determination; Rights of indigenous peoples; Initial report under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; The Second Amendment to the 1979 Criminal Procedural Code; Act on Administration of Exit and Entry; Work of UN Secretariat in human rights; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; Human Rights Treaty bodies and their reform); XII. International humanitarian law (protection of civilians in armed conflicts; Fourth Annual Session of Chinese National Committee of International Humanitarian Law; Litigation of Chinese victims against Japan before a court in Chongqing; Legal advisers in Chinese armed forces); XIII. International law on disasters (Strengthening of the co-ordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the UN, including special economic assistance); XIV. International law on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation (Nuclear disarmament; Mongolia's nuclear-weapons-free status; Chemical Weapons Convention; Biological Weapons Convention; Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW); Ottawa Convention; Anti-vehicle landmines; International humanitarian de-mining assistance; Protocol V to the CCW (ERW); China–Laos Memorandum of Understanding on the Provision of Assistance of China to the Laotian Victims of Cluster Munitions; Arms Trade Treaty; Cyber weapons; Conference on Disarmament); XV. International Criminal Law (International Criminal Court; ICTY and ICTR; Scope and application of universal jurisdiction; UN Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism; UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime; UN Convention against Corruption; Cyber crime; Trafficking in cultural property); XVI. International environmental law (Joint Declaration of the Moscow Meeting on Inclusion of International Civil Aviation in the EU-ETS; Directive on Prohibition from Participating in EU Carbon Emission System; Protection of atmosphere; Effects of atomic radiation; Use of water resources of cross-border rivers); XVII. Law on diplomatic and consular relations (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; The CHEN Guangcheng incident; The WANG Lijun case); XVIII. International law on international organizations (The reform of the UNSC; Sanctions imposed by the UNSC; The working methods of the UNSC; UN Peacekeeping operations; Regulation on Participation of People's Liberation Army in UN Peacekeeping Operations (Provisional Application); Inter-mission co-operation of UN peacekeeping operations; Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the UN); XIX. International law on settlement of disputes (International Court of Justice; Unilateral sanctions imposed by a State against another State).

State Diplomatic and Consular Relations

State Diplomatic and Consular Relations

The Supreme Court of Nevada: Gutierrez v. Nevada, Unpublished Order of Reversal and Remand, No. 53506

Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides that a consular officer shall, if requested by a national of the sending state arrested in the receiving state, be informed of the arrest by the authorities of the receiving state ‘‘without delay [and] shall have a right to visit [and assist the arrested] national.’’ It also provides that ‘‘said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights’’ to communicate with the consular officer.

The Dynamic Last-In-Time Rule

For more than a decade, controversy has raged over whether and when a U.S. state’s execution of a convicted foreign national can be delayed by an International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention). On several occasions — most recently on July 7, 2011 — the Supreme Court has declined to stay such an execution, even though the foreign national was convicted without being informed of his rights under the Vienna Convention. One doctrine raised to bar enforcement of the ICJ judgment was the last-in-time rule, which provides that when a statute and treaty conflict, the most recent instrument governs. A 2004 ICJ judgment held that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention rights of fifty-one Mexican nationals and further decreed that U.S. courts should remedy the violations by reconsidering those nationals’ convictions. Such relief would have been barred, however, by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a statute enacted after the 1969 ratification of the Vienna Convention, but before the 2004 ICJ judgment. The Supreme Court suggested, though it did not conclusively decide, that AEDPA would trump the Vienna Convention under the last-in-time rule. In the Court’s analysis, the Executive’s decision to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ in the proceedings resulting in the 2004 judgment was legally irrelevant. This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s suggestion is incorrect — the Executive’s decision to submit a dispute to an international tribunal under a valid treaty regime is a legally cognizable expression of the “dynamic” sovereign will. To establish this “dynamic last-in-time rule,” this Article analyzes the constitutional interests underlying the last-in-time rule, and related doctrines for interpreting and enforcing treaties. It then demonstrates that the dynamic last-in-time rule serves those interests better than its traditional, static counterpart. In the context of a conflict under a dynamic treaty regime, the Executive’s submission to international jurisdiction should trump previously enacted statutes. The result is greater fidelity to both constitutional principle and international obligation.

Nexos entre México y Europa Centro-Oriental

The first diplomatic and consular relations were established between Mexico and the Habsburg Empire in the 1800 s, motivated basically by commerdal reasons and dynastic interests. These got to an abrupt end with the execution of Emperor Maximilian in Querétaro in 1867, and diplomatic relations were resumed only decades later, in 1901, which is, in fact, our starting point. This essay examines the development of diplomatic relations between Mexico and Central-Eastern Europe from the beginning of the 20'' centuiy until nowadays. It is divided into chronological chapters, where we study bilateral relations in the coordinates of the following periods: beginning of the century, the period between the two world wars, the Second World War, Cold War and recent years. The investigation in based on documents of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico (SRE-AHD) and of the Hungarian National Archive (MOL).

Armed Conflict, Effect on Treaties

Today the majority view seems to approve the general applicability of peacetime law during war in regard to certain types of peacetime treaties (see paras 5-11). The topic is still disputed as neither the UN Charter nor other multilateral treaties include rules in regard to the effect of armed conflict on treaties. The → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (‘VCLT’) only says that the Convention does not cover these questions (Art. 73: ‘The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard to a treaty […] from the outbreak of hostilities between States’). This was due to the fact that the conduct of hostilities was seen wholly outside the scope of the general law of treaties to be codified in the articles of the VCLT by the drafters (Wetzel and Rauschning 480). Besides of this there is no decisive judgment or advisory opinion of the → International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the general question of the effects of armed conflicts on peacetime treaties (see United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran [United States of America v Iran], dealing only with the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, see below para. 6; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [Advisory Opinion], dealing with the question of the protection of the environment during armed conflict without giving a clear answer in regard to the question of the applicability of peacetime environmental treaties during armed conflicts, see below para. 10). After World War II, expert bodies dealt with the problem of the effect of armed conflict on treaties. The first important resolution was drafted by the → Institut de Droit international (‘IDI’) in 1985 (see the resolution ‘The Effects of Armed Conflict on Treaties’). The → International Law Commission (ILC) finally included this topic in its current programme of work in 2004 (UNGA Res 59/41 of 16 December 2004), a first report was drafted by special rapporteur Ian Brownlie in 2005 and in 2008 the ILC adopted, on first reading, a set of 18 draft articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties (‘ILC Draft Articles’). In 2010 Lucius Caflisch, the new special rapporteur, proposed a number of changes to the initial set of draft articles after these articles were commented by States. The most crucial topics of discussion have been inter alia the scope of the articles; effects of non-international armed conflicts; the indicia for identifying treaties which continue in operation; the types of treaties whose subject matter implies their survival in whole or in part; and the effects of international or civil war conditions involving a single State Party or several States Parties to treaties.

The history of diplomatic relations between Romania and Norway during the interwar period

This article aims at reconstructing based on diplomatic archives’ records the history of diplomatic and consular relations between the two countries during the interwar period. The diplomatic bonds between the two countries date back already before Norway had obtained its sovereignty by dissolving the United Kingdom of Sweden and Norway in 1905. Eventually, Romania recognized the Norwegian independence and conducted diplomatic relations with Norway through its legation in Berlin. The first official legation in Norway was established in 1917 by Grigore Bilciurescu’s appointment as chargé d’affaires in Christiania (Oslo). On the other hand, the first Norwegian diplomat who resided in Bucharest was Terje Knudtzon in 1935. During most of the interwar period the diplomatic relations between the two countries were conducted through envoys residing in other European capitals. The article fits into the category of historical evidence works and since it has adopted a chronological approach, it does not raise, more than is necessary, the prospect of a theoretical interpretation of these relations.

TAX RULES IN NON-TAX AGREEMENTS

As of July 2011, the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Korea”) is a party of seventy seven tax treaties, which comprehensively apply to international tax matters. However, the tax treaties are not the only international agreements having tax provisions. A number of non-tax agreements which Korea has entered into also contain provisions relating to taxation and the most provisions in these non-tax agreements provide exemptions from various types of taxation. The tax provisions in non-tax agreements have little or less attracted attention in Korea, maybe in the most treaty parties as well. It leads, as one of the obvious defects that the non-tax agreements have, that many of nontax agreements are outdated and of no use to both parties. In addition, the tax provisions are not always consistent with the ones in either the OECD Model Convention or the UN Model Convention and a tax treaty between both parties. The discussion in this article focuses on the tax provisions in international agreements where Korea is party, mainly covering non-tax issues, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention of the Consular Relations, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and other agreements copied from this Convention, the headquarter agreement with international organizations, the status of force agreements, cultural agreements, development aid agreements, and other agreements on technical and financial cooperation.

Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2009

Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2009

ПРАКТИКА МІЖНАРОДНОГО СУДУ ООН У СФЕРІ КОНСУЛЬСЬКОГО ЗАХИСТУ НА ПРИКЛАДІ США

The article focuses on main approaches toward the problem of practical implementation along with state enforcement in USA of the judgments, advisory opinions and orders of the International Court of Justice in the cases concerning the violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. In this context the main objectives of the aforesaid piece are to work out some universal attitudes to the aforesaid issue which allows Ukrainian consuls to be more effective providing consular assistance to our citizens abroad using the arsenal of legal instruments envisaged by the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, which accompanies the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Diplomatic Claim, Ethiopia’s Claim 8 (Ethiopia/Eritrea)

544War and armed conflict — Effects — Diplomatic relations — Belligerents maintaining diplomatic relations during armed conflict — Armed conflict not affecting basic principles of law relating to conduct of diplomatic relations — Inviolability of mission premises and diplomatic staff — ReciprocityDiplomatic relations — Principles — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Declaratory of customary international law — Fundamental principles of the law on diplomatic relations — Inviolability of mission premises and diplomatic staff — Applicability in time of armed conflict if belligerents maintain diplomatic relationsConsular relations — Principles — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Declaratory of customary international law — Fundamental principles of the law on consular relations — Applicability in time of armed conflict if belligerents maintain diplomatic relations

Diplomatic Claim, Eritrea’s Claim 20 (Eritrea/Ethiopia)

519War and armed conflict — Effects — Diplomatic relations — Belligerents maintaining diplomatic relations during armed conflict — Armed conflict not affecting basic principles of law relating to conduct of diplomatic relations — Inviolability of mission premises and diplomatic staff — ReciprocityDiplomatic relations — Principles — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Declaratory of customary international law — Fundamental principles of the law on diplomatic relations — Inviolability of mission premises and diplomatic staff — Applicability in time of armed conflict if belligerents maintain diplomatic relationsConsular relations — Principles — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Declaratory of customary international law — Fundamental principles of the law on consular relations — Applicability in time of armed conflict if belligerents maintain diplomatic relations

Medellin and Originalism

In Medellin v. Texas, the Supreme Court permitted Texas to proceed with the execution of a Mexican national who had not been given timely notice of his right of consular notification and consultation in violation of the United States' obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. It did so despite its finding that the United States had an obligation under treaty law to comply with an order of the International Court of Justice that Medellin's case be granted review and reconsideration. The international obligation, the Court found, was not domestically enforceable because the treaties at issue were not self-executing. The five Justices who signed the Chief Justice's Majority opinion, including the Court's self-proclaimed originalists, thus joined an opinion that construed the Constitution's Supremacy Clause without any serious consideration of its language or the history of its drafting, ignoring evidence of the Supremacy Clause's original meaning cited by the dissenting Justices. This Article explores the meaning of originalism in the context of the Court's Medellin decision and contends that the Majority's opinion, while perhaps defensible on other grounds, cannot be reconciled with any identifiable version of originalism. Rather it is best understood as a decision reflecting the conservative Majority's political commitment to favor principles of U.S. sovereignty and federalism over compliance with international obligations, even when the consequences of such a commitment is to enable state governments to undermine the foreign policy decisions of the political branches of the federal government. Ultimately, however, the Article concludes that Medellin's case never should have come before the Court. The President has a duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. The Court determined that the Bush administration did not satisfy this duty by issuing an Executive Memorandum directing states to comply with the judgment of the International Court of Justice. That being the case, the President now must comply with his Take Care Clause duties by working with Congress to make certain that federal law compels compliance with the International Court of Justice's judgment. Indeed, this Article contends that the Medellin case is emblematic of the U.S. executive branch's broader failure to ensure that all treaties requiring domestic implementation are in fact implemented so as to avoid placing the United States in violation of its international obligations.

Medellín’s New Paradigm for Treaty Interpretation

Much of the scholarly attention given to the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2008 decision in Medellín v. Texas has focused on the Court’s supposed ruling as to the presumptive nonself-execution of international agreements entered into by the United States, and the power of the president to implement such agreements without an act of Congress. Less heed has been paid to the impact and implications of the Court’s reasoning and analysis in interpreting the four international agreements at issue in the case: the 1945 United Nations Charter and Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and its Optional Protocol. Although the Court’s analysis of the self-execution questions is beyond the scope of my contribution to this Agora, I acknowledge that the jurisprudence of treaty interpretation fits uncomfortably with the calculus of an international agreement’s selfexecution into U.S. law. And while it may seem obscure to view the Medellín decision through the lens of treaty interpretation, that is what truly brings its importance into focus, so that its impact may ultimately be seen as clarifying the established norms of U.S. foreign relations law, particularly in the selection of appropriate sources for treaty construction and the deference to be granted to various foreign relations actors and institutions.

The United States, the International Court of Justice, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Introductory Note to Medellin v. Texas

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the ICJ decision in Avena was not directly enforceable in the United States as domestic law, and that the President lacked power to direct state courts to implement Avena. This introductory note will apear in volume 47 of International Legal Materials. It sets forth the background of Avena and other VCCR cases before the ICJ. It also discusses an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights not cited by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some cases after Medellin are identified, as well as Mexico's most recent June 2008 request for an interpretation of Avena and an indication of provisional measures to prevent the execution of Mexican nationals named in the Avena judgment.

International Law in the American Courts– The United States Supreme Court Declines to Enforce the I.C.J.'sAvenaJudgment Relating to a U.S. Obligation under the Convention on Consular Relations

The United States is a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (“the Consular Convention”). It requires in Article 36(1)(b) that the competent authorities of each State party inform the consulate of another party if the latter's national is arrested and requests that the consulate be notified. Article 36(1)(b) further requires the authorities to inform the person arrested of the right to communicate with the consulate. Article 36(2) says that the rights in Article 36(1) are to be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso “that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.”