A for­mer State Department offi­cial in the Bush admin­is­tra­tion is urg­ing Congress to help the U.S. com­ply with a rul­ing from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regard­ing the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations as a way of pro­tect­ing U.S. cit­i­zens trav­el­ing abroad. John Bellinger, who argued before the ICJ, said in an op-ed in the Washington Post that a key pro­vi­sion [of the Vienna Convention] requires par­ties to the treaty to prompt­ly inform, upon arrest, nation­als of oth­er par­ties to the treaty that they have a right to meet with a con­sular offi­cial.” But the U.S. failed to give such notice to for­eign nation­als in the U.S. who faced the death penal­ty. In 2004, the ICJ at the Hague held that the U.S. was required to review the con­vic­tions and sen­tences of 51 Mexicans on death row in the U.S. whose rights under the treaty were not respect­ed. A year lat­er, then-President George W. Bush ordered Texas courts to car­ry out this review for those on its death row. Texas chal­lenged Bush’s order, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Texas, say­ing the pres­i­dent does not have the pow­er to order state courts to review crim­i­nal con­vic­tions. The op-ed not­ed that the Vienna Convention is a two-way street and that U.S. com­pli­ance with its pro­vi­sions is essen­tial to ensure that Americans detained abroad receive the same treat­ment. Bellinger wrote, U.S. com­pli­ance with the Vienna Convention is vital. [U.S.] law­mak­ers can­not expect oth­er coun­tries to com­ply with their treaty oblig­a­tions to us unless the United States observes its treaty oblig­a­tions to them.” Read full edi­to­r­i­al below.

Friday, March 4, 2011
An inter­na­tion­al treaty Congress should sup­port
By John B. Bellinger III 

About two years ago, while many Americans were watch­ing President Obama’s inau­gu­ra­tion and my for­mer col­leagues in the Bush admin­is­tra­tion were clean­ing out their offices, I was fly­ing home from The Hague, where the International Court of Justice had just ruled against the United States in a case I had argued. The 15-judge court said that the United States had vio­lat­ed inter­na­tion­al law by allow­ing Texas to exe­cute Jose Medellin, a Mexican nation­al who had been con­vict­ed of the gris­ly rape and mur­der of two young girls, but who had not been giv­en access to the Mexican Embassy at the time of his arrest. It ordered the United States to review the cap­i­tal mur­der con­vic­tions of 50 other Mexicans.

Although many con­ser­v­a­tives have crit­i­cized the World Court for infring­ing on American sov­er­eign­ty, all Americans should want President Obama and the 112th Congress to com­ply with the court’s deci­sion, to help ensure that Americans arrest­ed abroad are giv­en access to State Department officials.

The court’s 2009 rul­ing involved 51 Mexican nation­als, all of whom had been con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death for heinous crimes in this coun­try. None of them had been told at the time of their arrests about their right to meet with a Mexican Embassy offi­cial, as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The Vienna Convention, one of the most impor­tant inter­na­tion­al agree­ments to which the United States is par­ty, was unan­i­mous­ly approved by the Senate in 1969 on the rec­om­men­da­tion of then-President Richard Nixon. The con­ven­tion pro­vides legal rules for coun­tries to help their com­pa­nies or cit­i­zens who trav­el to or con­duct busi­ness in for­eign coun­tries. A key pro­vi­sion requires par­ties to the treaty to prompt­ly inform, upon arrest, nation­als of oth­er par­ties to the treaty that they have the right to meet with a con­sular offi­cial. Several thou­sand Americans are arrest­ed in for­eign coun­tries every year, some­times on trumped-up charges; this pro­vi­sion helps them alert their fam­i­lies, retain lawyers and receive help from the U.S. government.

In this instance, Mexico had brought a legal action before the International Court of Justice in 2003, claim­ing that the United States had vio­lat­ed the Vienna Convention. In 2004, the court ordered Washington to review the con­vic­tions of the 51 Mexicans to deter­mine whether their lack of con­sular access had prej­u­diced their legal defens­es. Under the U.N. Charter, which the Senate over­whelm­ing­ly approved in 1945, the United States is oblig­at­ed to com­ply with the deci­sions of the World Court.

In 2005, to the sur­prise of lib­er­als and con­ser­v­a­tives, President George W. Bush direct­ed state courts to review all of the Mexican con­vic­tions to com­ply with the U.N. Charter and ensure that Americans detained abroad receive rec­i­p­ro­cal pro­tec­tions of the Vienna Convention.

The state of Texas chal­lenged Bush’s order, claim­ing that its for­mer gov­er­nor had exceed­ed his con­sti­tu­tion­al author­i­ty. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Texas. In an opin­ion by Chief Justice John Roberts, while the court unan­i­mous­ly held that the United States has both an oblig­a­tion under inter­na­tion­al law to com­ply with the World Court’s deci­sion and acknowl­edged a plain­ly com­pelling” inter­est in ensur­ing rec­i­p­ro­cal obser­vance of the Vienna Convention, the court con­clud­ed that the U.S. Constitution does not give the pres­i­dent pow­er to order state courts to review crim­i­nal con­vic­tions, even in an effort to com­ply with U.S. treaty oblig­a­tions. Congress, the jus­tices said, must give the pres­i­dent spe­cif­ic statu­to­ry author­i­ty to do so.

After the Supreme Court’s deci­sion, Texas prompt­ly exe­cut­ed Jose Medellin, which led to the World Court deci­sion in January 2009 that the United States had vio­lat­ed the World Court’s previous order.

In con­trast to the Bush admin­is­tra­tion, the Obama admin­is­tra­tion has made less vis­i­ble efforts to com­ply with the World Court rul­ings. The White House has not asked Congress for leg­is­la­tion autho­riz­ing the pres­i­dent to order review of the con­vic­tions of the remain­ing Mexican nation­als, pre­sum­ably because it is not pop­u­lar to side with an inter­na­tion­al tri­bunal in favor of a group of con­vict­ed mur­der­ers. The next exe­cu­tion is sched­uled for July.

Although Republicans might not be eager to coop­er­ate with President Obama, leg­is­la­tors should craft a nar­row law autho­riz­ing the pres­i­dent to com­ply with the World Court rul­ing. Even if they are skep­ti­cal of vague prin­ci­ples of inter­na­tion­al law, House Republicans should rec­og­nize that U.S. com­pli­ance with the Vienna Convention is vital. Members of Congress con­demn oth­er coun­tries who fail to com­ply with their treaty oblig­a­tions to the United States in cas­es of con­sular access and diplo­mat­ic immu­ni­ty. But law­mak­ers can­not expect oth­er coun­tries to com­ply with their treaty oblig­a­tions to us unless the United States observes its treaty oblig­a­tions to them. Congress and the pres­i­dent must ensure that the United States observes the Vienna Convention not as a favor to for­eign­ers but because it serves a plain­ly com­pelling” nation­al inter­est in pro­tect­ing Americans who trav­el and American com­pa­nies that oper­ate in foreign countries.

The writer is a part­ner at Arnold & Porter LLP and an adjunct senior fel­low in inter­na­tion­al and nation­al secu­ri­ty law at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as legal advis­er for the State Department from 2005 to 2009

(J. Bellinger, An inter­na­tion­al treaty Congress should sup­port,” Washington Post (op-ed), March 4, 2011). See Foreign Nationals and International.

Citation Guide