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.
Miquelon-Weismann, Miriam F.
"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:
1, Article 1.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/umlr/vol2/iss1/1