John Bellinger, who served as legal adviser to the State Department from 2005 to 2009, has called on President Obama to assist in the review of the death penalty cases of foreign nationals who were denied rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The U.S. has ratified the Vienna Convention and the Protocol that provides for resolution of disputes in the International Court of Justice in the Hague (ICJ). Mexico brought a suit to this court on behalf of its citizens on death row in various states because the U.S. had not provided the defendants with access to their consulates at the time of their arrest. The ICJ held that the cases of the Mexican nationals should be reviewed before any executions went forward. President George W. Bush ordered state courts to review the cases, but this order was ultimately blocked in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Bellinger said that President Obama could comply with our obligations under the treaty through legislation: “The Obama administration’s best option would be to seek narrowly tailored legislation that would authorize the president to order review of these cases and override, if necessary, any state criminal laws limiting further appeals, in order to comply with the United Nations Charter,” he wrote recently in the N.Y. Times.

Texas has already executed Jose Medellin, one of the lead plaintiffs in this international dispute. The Mexican suit was brought on behalf of 51 death row inmates who had been denied rights such as the ones U.S. citizens would demand if arrested in a foreign country. The full op-ed may be read below:

Lawlessness North of the Border By JOHN B. BELLINGER III Washington PRESIDENT OBAMA has rightly emphasized America's commitment to complying with international law. It is surprising, then, that he has so far taken no steps to comply with decisions of the International Court of Justice requiring the United States to review the cases of 51 Mexicans convicted of murder in state courts who had been denied access to Mexican consular officials, in violation of American treaty obligations. In contrast to its mishandling of detainees, the Bush administration worked conscientiously in its second term to comply with these rulings, even taking the step of ordering the states to revisit the Mexican cases, a move the Supreme Court invalidated last year. The Obama administration should support federal legislation that would enable the president to ensure that the United States lives up to its international obligations. The international court's decisions arise from the arrest, conviction and death sentences of more than 50 Mexicans. As a party to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the United States is required to inform foreigners arrested here of their right to have a consular official from their country notified of their arrest. Unfortunately, it has proven all but impossible to guarantee that state law enforcement officials observe this obligation in all cases, and nearly all of the Mexicans at issue were never told of their Vienna Convention rights. In 2003, Mexico filed suit against the United States in The Hague, demanding that the Mexicans' convictions be reviewed to determine whether the absence of consular notice had prejudiced the defendants* ability to hire qualified counsel. The international court sided with Mexico, ruling that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention, and ordered us to reconsider all of the convictions and death sentences. This decision presented a serious legal and diplomatic challenge for President George W. Bush early in his second term. But Texas strongly opposed acquiescing to an international court, especially in the prominent case of José Medellín, who had been convicted of the rape and murder of two teenage girls. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argued, however, that the United States was legally obligated by the United Nations Charter to follow the international court*s decisions, and she emphasized the importance of complying to ensure reciprocal Vienna Convention protections for Americans arrested overseas. (The United States, for example, took Iran to the international court for violating the Vienna Convention by denying American hostages consular access during the 1979 embassy takeover.) President Bush ultimately issued an order in February 2005 directing state courts to follow the international court*s decision. But Texas challenged the president's order and, in March 2008, the Supreme Court sided with Texas. Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged America's obligation to comply with the international court's decisions, but held that the president lacked inherent constitutional authority to supersede state criminal law rules limiting appeals and that Congress had never enacted legislation authorizing him to do so. President Bush's advisers concluded that, in an election year, Congress could not be persuaded to pass legislation extending additional rights to convicted murderers. So instead Secretary Rice and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas reminding him of the United States' treaty obligations. Although Governor Perry agreed to support limited review in certain cases, Texas nevertheless proceeded with the execution of José Medellín. In the meantime, after the Medellín decision, Mexico sought a new ruling from the International Court of Justice that the United States had misinterpreted the court's earlier judgment. In January--in a case I argued--the international court concluded that although the United States clearly accepted its obligation to comply with the decision, our nation had violated international law by allowing Mr. Medellín to be executed. The court reaffirmed that the remaining cases must be reviewed. President Obama now faces the same challenges as Mr. Bush in 2005: an international obligation to review the cases of those Mexicans remaining on death rows across the country; state governments that are politically unwilling or legally unable to provide this review; and a Congress that often fails to appreciate that compliance with treaty obligations is in our national interest, not an infringement of our sovereignty. The Obama administration's best option would be to seek narrowly tailored legislation that would authorize the president to order review of these cases and override, if necessary, any state criminal laws limiting further appeals, in order to comply with the United Nations Charter. From closing Guantánamo to engaging with the International Criminal Court to seeking Senate approval of the Law of the Sea Convention, President Obama is confronting the recurring tension between our international interests and domestic politics. But reviewing the Mexican cases as the international court demands is not insincere global theater. On the contrary, complying with the Vienna Convention is legally required and smart foreign policy. It protects Americans abroad and confirms this country's commitment to international law. John B. Bellinger III, a lawyer, was the legal adviser to the State
Department from April 2005 to January 2009.
(J. Bellinger, "Lawlessness North of the Border," N.Y. Times, July 18, 2009). See Foreign Nationals and New Voices.