U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial Body

Does this mean anything to travelers??

It might. Under the protocol agreements presently in
force (see Article 36b of the 1963 Vienna Convention
http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm)

If you are an American arrested in, say, France, the French
authorities have to notify American Embassy officials
WITHOUT DELAY of you being held unless you tell the French
authorities you don't with the Embassy notified. What is
your recourse if the French authorities don't respect you
request. The case can go to the international court and
they can hand down a decision in this regard. In a French
court it might lead to dismissal of the charges since
procedure was not followed. The individual US states have
traditionally ignored this treaty.

Earl


******





U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial Body



Prompted by an international tribunal's decision last year ordering new
hearings for 51 Mexicans on death rows in the United States, the State
Department said yesterday that the United States had withdrawn from the
protocol that gave the tribunal jurisdiction to hear such disputes.

The withdrawal followed a Feb. 28 memorandum from President Bush to
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales directing state courts to abide by
the decision of the tribunal, the International Court of Justice in The
Hague. The decision required American courts to grant "review and
reconsideration" to claims that the inmates' cases had been hurt by the
failure of local authorities to allow them to contact consular officials.

The memorandum, issued in connection with a case the United States Supreme
Court is scheduled to hear this month, puzzled state prosecutors, who said
it seemed inconsistent with the administration's general hostility to
international institutions and its support for the death penalty.

The withdrawal announced yesterday helps explains the administration's
position.

Darla Jordan, a State Department spokeswoman, said the administration was
troubled by foreign interference in the domestic capital justice system
but intended to fulfill its obligations under international law.

But Ms. Jordan said, "We are protecting against future International Court
of Justice judgments that might similarly interfere in ways we did not
anticipate when we joined the optional protocol."

Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at the University of Georgia, said the
withdrawal was unbecoming.

"It's a sore-loser kind of move," Professor Spiro said. "If we can't win,
we're not going to play."

Ms. Jordan emphasized that the United States was not withdrawing from the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations itself, which gives people
arrested abroad the right to contact their home countries' consulates. But
the United States is withdrawing, she said, from an optional protocol that
gives the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, jurisdiction to hear disputes under
the convention.

"While roughly 160 countries belong to the consular convention," she said,
"less than 30 % of those countries belong to the optional protocol. By
withdrawing from the protocol, the United States has joined the 70 % of
the countries that do not belong. For example, Brazil, Canada, Jordan,
Russia and Spain do not belong."

Among the countries that have signed the protocol are Australia, Britain,
Germany and Japan.

Ms. Jordan said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed Kofi Annan,
the secretary general of the United Nations, of the move on Monday.

Harold Hongju Koh, the dean of the Yale Law School and a former State
Department official in the Clinton administration, said the Bush
administration's strategy was counterproductive.

"International adjudication is an important tool in a post-cold-war,
post-9/11 world," Dean Koh said.

For 40 years, from 1946 to 1986, the United States accepted the general
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in all kinds of cases
against other nations that had also agreed to the court's jurisdiction.
After an unfavorable ruling from the court in 1986 over the mining of
Nicaragua's harbors, the United States withdrew from the court's general
jurisdiction.

But it continued to accept its jurisdiction under about 70 specific
treaties, including the protocol withdrawn from on Monday, said Lori F.
Damrosch, a law professor at Columbia. The other treaties cover subjects
like navigation, terrorism, narcotics and copyrights, and they are
unaffected.

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case of Jos
Ernesto Medelln, a Mexican on death row in Texas, on March 28. Mr. Medelln
asks the court to enforce last year's judgment of the international
tribunal. Texas opposes the request.

When the federal government filed its supporting brief for Texas in the
case at the end of last month, it appended the memorandum from the
president to the attorney general.

Before the administration's strategy came into focus, international law
professors greeted the memorandum with amazement.

"This is a president who has been openly hostile to international law and
international institutions knuckling under, and knuckling under where
there are significant federalism concerns," Professor Spiro said.

As it turned out, Dean Koh said, the government had "an integrated
strategy."

"Element 1," he continued, "was to take the bat out of the Supreme Court's
hand."

Lawyers for Mr. Medelln reacted cautiously. In a motion filed in the
Supreme Court yesterday, Donald F. Donovan, a lawyer with the New York law
firm Debevoise & Plimpton, asked the court to put off hearing argument
until Texas state courts could consider Mr. Medelln's claim.

For their part, Texas prosecutors have not conceded that the president has
the power to force courts there to reopen the Medelln case.

In a statement, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg
Abbott of Texas, questioned the president's authority.

"The State of Texas believes no international court supersedes the laws of
Texas or the laws of the United States," Mr. Strickland said. "We
respectfully believe the executive determination exceeds the
constitutional bounds for federal authority."

Sandra Babcock, a Minnesota lawyer who represents the government of
Mexico, said she had no doubt that the president was authorized to
instruct state courts to reopen Mr. Medelln's case and 50 others.

"The law is on our side," Ms. Babcock said. "The president is on our side.
I keep having to slap myself."

Earl Evleth writes:

U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial Body

How long did the penetration last?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Earl Evleth wrote:
Does this mean anything to travelers??

It might. Under the protocol agreements presently in
force (see Article 36b of the 1963 Vienna Convention
http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm)

If you are an American arrested in, say, France, the French
authorities have to notify American Embassy officials
WITHOUT DELAY of you being held unless you tell the French
authorities you don't with the Embassy notified. What is
your recourse if the French authorities don't respect you
request. The case can go to the international court and
they can hand down a decision in this regard. In a French
court it might lead to dismissal of the charges since
procedure was not followed. The individual US states have
traditionally ignored this treaty.
[snip]

Do note the following:

"While roughly 160 countries belong to the consular convention," she
said,
"less than 30 % of those countries belong to the optional protocol.
By
withdrawing from the protocol, the United States has joined the 70 %
of
the countries that do not belong. For example, Brazil, Canada,
Jordan,
Russia and Spain do not belong."

Among the countries that have signed the protocol are Australia,
Britain,
Germany and Japan.
[snip]