Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T17:29:02.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medellín v. Texas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Margaret E. McGuinness
Margaret E. McGuinness*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 622 - 628
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008).

2 Avena (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 ICJ REP. 12 (Mar. 31).

3 See Sean, D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States, ICJ Decision Regarding Mexicans on Death Row in United States, 98 AJIL 364 (2004)Google Scholar; Dinah, L. Shelton, Case Report: Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), 98 AJIL 559 (2004).Google Scholar

4 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 77, 596 UNTS 261; Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 24, 1963, Art. I, 21 UST 325, 596 UNTS 487.

5 Avena, para. 153.

6 Application of the Government of Paraguay (Apr. 3,1998), Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Para, v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, 1998 ICJ Rep. 11 (Apr. 9, 1998); see Agora: Breard, 92 AJIL 666 (1998).Google Scholar

7 Application Instituting Proceedings Submitted by the Federal Republic of German (Mar. 2, 1999), LaGrand (FRG v. U.S.), 2001 ICJ Rep. 466 (June 27). LaGrandis discussed in a case report by William J. Aceves at 96 AJIL 210 (2002).

8 In the Paraguay case, the Supreme Court applied procedural bar rules to deny petitioner’s relief. Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998) (per curiam). In the Germany case the Supreme Court refused to exercise its original jurisdiction to hear the case. Federal Republic of Germany v. United States, 526 U.S. III (1999) (per curiam); see also LaGrand v. Arizona, 526 U.S. 1001 (1999).

9 Memorandum of President George W. Bush to the Attorney General (Feb. 28. 2005), at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050228-18.html>.

10 Letter from Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, to Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations (Mar. 7, 2005), see <http://untreaty.un.org/English/CNs/2005/101_200/186E.doc>.

11 Exparte Medellín, 223 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2006); see John, R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 101 AJIL 478 (2007).Google Scholar

12 See Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

13 Discussing Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331,351 (2006). See Curtis, A. Bradley, Case Report: Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 100 AJIL 882, 887 (2006)Google Scholar.

14 In this context the Court noted that the executive branch so understood the available remedies when it signed the UN Charter and sent it to the Senate for advice and consent.

15 Citing Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 4, 27–29, Medellfn v. Texas.

16 Quoting Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 5.

17 343 U.S. 579, 635–38 (1952).

18 Citing Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 591 (2006) (reported by Peter J. Spiro at 100 AJIL 888 (2006)).

19 (U.S. v. Nicar.), 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 (June 27).

20 Am. Ins. Assoc, v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003); Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 670–80 (1981); United States v. Pink, 325 U.S. 203, 229 (1942); United States v. Belmont, 310 U.S. 324, 330 (1937).

21 Corneo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2007).

22 Jogi v. Voges, 480 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2007).

23 Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006).

24 Bradley, supra note 13, at 887.

25 See Brief for International Court of Justice Experts as Amicus Curiae at 18, Medellín v. Texas.

26 See, for example, Ernie Young’s Medellín v. Texas: Another Set of Early Thoughts and Paul Stephan’s Medellín v. Texas: “Modest and Fairly Careful, “both in the Opinio Juris Medellín v. Texas Symposium, March 26–29, 2008, at <http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/chain_1206455842.shtml>.

27 The Hunting of the Snark (An Agony in 8 Fits), at <http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/CarSnar.html>, is a Lewis Carroll poem that describes “the impossible voyage of an improbable crew to find an inconceivable creature.”

28 See, e.g., David, M. Golove, Treaty-Making and the Nation: The Historical Foundations of the Nationalist Conception of the Treaty Power , 98 Mich. L. Rev. 1075 (2000)Google Scholar; Quinn, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Executing the Treaty Power , 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1867 (2005).Google Scholar

29 See, e.g., Judith, Resnik, Foreign as Domestic Affairs: Rethinking Horizontal Federalism and Foreign Affairs in Light of Translocal Internationalism , 57 Emory L.J. 31 (2007).Google Scholar

30 Koven, Janet Levit, A Tale of International Law in the Heartland: Torres and the Role of State Courts in Transnational Legal Conversation , 12 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int’l L. 163 (2004).Google Scholar

31 See, e.g., Brief for Constitutional and International Law Scholars as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent, Medellín v. Texas.

32 Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).

33 Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457U.S. 176,184–85 (1982); El Al Airlines, Ltd. v. Tseng, 525 U.S. 155, 168 (1999).