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

IF 3 1区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences
Cara H. Drinan
{"title":"Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Private Enforcement in American Courts after LaGrand","authors":"Cara H. Drinan","doi":"10.2307/1229623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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","PeriodicalId":51386,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Law Review","volume":"54 1","pages":"1303"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1229623","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1229623","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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
《维也纳领事关系公约》第36条:拉格朗之后美国法院的私人执行
2001年6月27日,国际法院(ICJ)在德国诉美利坚合众国(LaGrand)一案中裁定,《维也纳领事关系公约》(“VCCR”)第36条规定,在外国被逮捕或拘留时,可单独执行领事探视权在美国,死刑反对者对国际法院的裁决表示欢迎,因为它有望提供更大的正当程序保护,而各州的权利倡导者则批评该决定是非法行使刑事上诉管辖权。理论上,拉格朗解决了许多困扰美国法院的问题:第36条的权利是属于个人还是属于签署国;这项权利是否可以私下执行;国内程序规则是否可以在某些情况下禁止第36条的索赔;以及国际法院的临时措施是否对成员国具有约束力。然而,拉格朗德的意见澄清了很多问题,但也留下了很多不清楚的地方。从程序上讲,如果按照拉格朗德的说法,它对美国刑事法庭有着巨大的影响。然而,美国法院如何以及是否会将国际法院在拉格朗德的判决纳入其法理,仍有待观察。美国最高法院尚未以全面的方式处理拉格朗案的问题因此,法院在……方面差别很大
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信