Garcia v. Texas - International and Domestic Law

For those of you interested in reading more about the Garcia v. Texas case, as an example of the frequent tension between international law and the domestic law of federal states, here is a helpful blog-post review of the case. The Supreme Court decision itself can be found here.

The government of the United States argued in an amicus brief that the international relations of the U.S. would be harmed if Texas proceeded with the execution, in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Interestingly, earlier this year the United States insisted on strict compliance with the companion treaty, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in the case of the CIA officer held in Pakistan for killing two people in the streets of Lahore. You can read more about that case at the links here, here and here.

We will look at the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations later in the course, and consider whether Mr. Davis was indeed entitled to diplomatic immunity.

American Society of International Law

Those of you with more than a passing interest in international law should explore all that the American Society of International Law has to offer, and consider registering for a student membership. Here is a link to the most recent ASIL "post", which is a bi-weekly email providing an update on all things relating to international law that has happened in the last two weeks. You can also go to the ASIL website and explore the wealth of resources it provides. The ASIL conference in April, in Washington D.C. (overlapping with the international rounds of the Jessup International Law Moot) is one of the largest annual international law conferences.

Genocide Convention and ICCPR Reservations

On Monday we will continue our examination of the reservations in the law of treaties. As you prepare for class, consider the following questions:

- In considering the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on the Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, what do you think was the rationale for the "traditional" position on acceptance/objection with respect to reservations? What was the reasoning of the Court in articulating a new theory?

- How is that new rationale reflected in the VCLT?

- How should we understand the U.S. reservation to the Genocide Convention in light of this decision? What is the "object and purpose" of the Convention? How are we to assess whether the U.S. reservation defeats that object and purpose?

- Why should reservations to human rights treaties be treated differently from those to other kinds of multi-lateral treaty?

- Which do you think is the better argument on reservations to the ICCPR - the Human Rights Committee, or the U.S. government? Why? What would be the implications for the law of treaties of either argument?

We will also begin examining the fundamental issues of observance, application and interpretation. Be sure to review the relevant VCLT articles as you read the beginning of Section 4.

The extract from the case Bosnia Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, is being used here to illustrate several principles of interpretation. The notes following the case are particularly helpful in understanding what principles of interpretation were used and how they were employed in the case.

Law of Treaties - Readings

Next week we will continue to look at the Law of Treaties, picking up where we left off on the issue of reservations. Pay particular attention to the ICJ advisory opinion, and the Human Rights Committee comments on reservations to the ICCPR.

In Section 4, on "Observance, Application, and Interpretation," read all of pp. 163-177, but in the notes beginning at p. 177, you need only review notes 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11.

When we turn to Section 5 on "Invalidity of Treaties," you will need to read parts A, and skim parts B and C; we will pay more close attention to part D on conflict with jus cogens norms.

In Section 6, "Termination or Suspension of Treaties," we will look at parts A and B closely, and in part C, pay particular attention to the Report of the ILC (and following notes), and the Advisory Opinion on Namibia. In part D, again the Report of the ILC, and the Babcikovo-Nagymaros Project case (which will come up several times during the course).

Hate Crimes and Freedom of Expression - for those who were interested in exploring further a different perspective on the balance between freedom of expression and equality rights in crafting hate-speech laws, you might be interested in the R. v. Keegstra decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that was mentioned in class. The headnote is quite detailed and will give you a sense of the argument if you don't have time to read the entire opinion.

Law of Treaties - Conclusion, Capacity, Consent, and Reservations

The International Criminal Court

On Friday we will continue the discussion of the law of treaties, looking in particular at the issues of concluding a treaty, capacity to enter into treaty,  methods of expressing consent, and reservations. Some points to think about as you review the material:

- What was the significance of the Bush Administration famously "un-signing" the ICC Rome Statute? What explanation can you find in the VCLT for the US government having done so?

- What are the pros and cons of permitting reservations? Does the rationale differ if the treaty is a human rights treaty as opposed to, say, a regional trade treaty? If so, why?

- Consider, for purposes of discussion, the U.S. reservations to the ICCPR (reservation to Art. 20(2)), and the Genocide Convention (general reservation), and the ICJ's opinion on the matter of reservations, and the Human Rights Committee's views on reservations to the ICCPR.

Welcome to Public International Law, Fall 2011

As we get started on the somewhat mundane subject of the law of treaties, consider how it might be used in responding to the burning questions of the day. Here is a link to a post yesterday, on the international law blog Opinio Juris, discussing the question of whether the new Libyan government would be obliged to turn Col. Qaddafi over to the International Criminal Court.