Abstract
To squarely address this decisional quagmire, this article examines the binding effect of ICJ orders, entered pursuant to its compulsory jurisdiction, on American courts; earlier decisions of the Supreme Court penalizing foreign nationals for failing to timely raise individual treaty claims; the effect on treaty enforcement in domestic courts after the executive branch’s recent foreign policy decision to withdraw from compulsory ICJ jurisdiction; the current policy disputes dividing the United States and the ICJ; and, the national interest, or lack thereof, in treaty compliance. The article concludes that the government’s current claim that a “long standing presumption” exists to prevent the assertion of individual rights under Article 36 is simply not supported by international law or prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
Recommended Citation
Miquelon-Weismann, Miriam F.
(2007)
"Spreading Democracy Everywhere But Here: The Unlikely Prospect of Foreign National Defendants Asserting Treaty Violations in American Courts After Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon and Medellin v. Dretke,"
University of Massachusetts Law Review: Vol. 2:
Iss.
1, Article 1.
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/umlr/vol2/iss1/1