Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:13:59.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Look at Domestic Enforcement of International Tribunal Judgments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Andreas Paulus
Andreas Paulus*
Affiliation:
Georg-August-University Göttingen
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
A Comparative Look at Domestic Enforcement of International Decisions
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 103 , 2009 , pp. 42 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2009

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 Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P, Kadi & Ai Barakaat v. Council of the European Union and EC Commission, 3 C.M.L.R. 41 (2008).

2 Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric Posner, Does Europe Believe in International Law?, Wall St. J., Nov. 25, 2008, at 15.

3 S.C. Res. 1267 (Oct. 15, 1999); S.C. Res. 1333 (Dec. 19, 2000); S.C. Res. 1390 (Jan. 16, 2002); S.C. Res. 1452 (Dec. 20, 2002); S.C. Res. 1455 (Jan. 17, 2003).

4 See Simma, Bruno, From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law, 250 RdC 217, 264-83 (1994)Google Scholar, for further references.

5 Treaty on European Union and Treaty Establishing the European Community (consolidated texts), Dec. 29, 2006, O.J.C. 321E.

6 See Paulus, Andreas, The Emergence of the International Community and the Divide Between International and Domestic Law, in New Perspectives on the Divide Between International Law and National Law, 216, 228-34 (Nollkaemper, André and Nijman, Jane E. eds., 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar for further references.

7 Medellín v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008).

8 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BverfG - Federal Constitutional Court), Sept. 19, 2006, 2 BvR 2115/01, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060919_2bvr211501.html.

9 For details, see Paulus, Andreas and Müller, Jörn, Konsularische Information vor deutschen Gerichten—Never Ending Story oder Happy End? , Strafverteidiger, 495-502 (2009)Google Scholar.

l0 Medellín, 128 S.Ct. at 1360.

11 Kelsen, Hans, Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory 26 (1992)Google Scholar.

12 LaGrand (Germany v. U.S.), Judgment, ICJ Rep. 2001 (June 27), at 516, ¶ 128(7); Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. U.S.), ICJ Rep. 2004 (March 31), at 72, ¶ 153(9).

13 Medellín, 128 S.Ct. at 1374, referring, however, to the states rather than to the U.S. Congress.

14 Id. at 1366.

15 See Medellín v. Texas, 129 S.Ct. 360 (2008) (per curiam), but see the dissents by J. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer at 362-63.

16 Medellín, 128 S.Ct. at 1363.

17 See LaGrand, ICJ Rep. 2001, p. 466. The present Author was counsel for Germany in the case, but of course writes exclusively in his individual capacity.

18 BGH, Beschluss v. 7.11.2001 (Decision of 7 Nov. 2001), 5 StR 116/01, (2003) Strafverteidiger 57; (2002) Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 168 with a comment by the present Author.

19 BverfG, 2 BvR 2115/01. For a comparison of this decision with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006), see Gogolin, J., Avena and Sanchez-Llamas Come to Germany, 8 German LJ 261 (2007)Google Scholar; Hoppe, Carsten, Implementation of LaGrand and Avena in Germany and the United States: Exploring a Transatlantic Divide in Search of a Uniform Interpretation of Consular Rights, 18 European J. Int’l L 317-336 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a German view sympathetic to the U.S. Supreme Court, see Gärditz, 101 AJIL 627 (2007).

20 BverfG, 2 BvR 2115/01 at ¶ 61.

21 Id, at ¶ 62. Cf. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 316, n. 21 (2002); Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2473, 2481, 2483 (2003); Atkins, 536 U.S. 321, 325 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting); Id. (Scalia, J. dissenting).

22 BVerfG, 2 BvR 2115/01 at ¶ 62; see also Görgülü, BVerfGE 111, 102 at 128; BVerwGE [Decisions of the Federal Administrative Court] 110, 203 at 210.

23 Id. With regard to Advisory Opinions, the Israeli Supreme Court limits the authority of the ICJ to matters of interpretation of international law only, see Mara’abe v. Prime Minister, HCJ 7957/04 (Sept. 15, 2005), at 47; 45 ILM 202, 232 (2006)at ¶¶ 73-74.

24 This was famously the description of the relationship between BVerfG and ECJ in the Maastricht decision Brunner v. European Union Treaty, Judgment, 12 Oct. 1993; BVerfGE 89, 155 at 175, [1994] 1 CMLR 57, 79 (“Kooperationsverhältnis”—relationship of co-operation between ECJ and BVerfG regarding the protection of human rights).

25 See Kirchhof, Paul, Der deutsche Staat im Prozeß der Europäischen Integration, in Handbuch Des Staatsrechts 855-887 (Isensee, Josef and Kirchhof, Paul eds., 1992)Google Scholar, § 183, ¶ 65.

26 Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network, and the Taliban

27 Kadi, 3 C.M.L.R. 41.

28 Id. at 375-376.

29 Id. at 366, 374.

30 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2008 of 28 Nov. 2008, OJ L 322/25 of 2 Dec. 2008. The information was provided by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities (“1267 Committee”), see Grauls, Security Council, 63rd year, 6015th meeting, S/PV.6015 (Nov. 12, 2008), at 6.

31 Craig Whitlock, Terrorism Financing Blacklists At Risk, Wash. Post, Nov. 2, 2008, at Al.

32 Bosphorus v. Ireland, [2005] ECHR-VI. In the same sense, see Kadi, 3 C.M.L.R. 41, ¶¶ 322-26.

33 Kadi, 3 C.M.L.R. 41, ¶¶ 283-85, 316.

34 In this sense, see also Human Rights Committee, Sayadi v. Belgium, Communication No. 1472/2006, Views, Oct. 22, 2008, Doc. CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006, Ind. Op. Iwasawa, at 34; Nigel Rodley, ibd., at 36 (arguing that Council action needs to be interpreted as intending to maintain human rights).

35 For a similar critique, see Weiler, Joseph, Editorial, 19 Eur. J. Int’l. L. 895-96 (2008)Google Scholar; Gattini, Andrea, Comment, 46 C.M.L. Rev. 213-14, 226-27 (2009)Google Scholar; Halberstam, Daniel and Stein, Eric, The UN the EU, and the King of Sweden, 46 C.M.L.Rev. 13, 71-72 (2009)Google Scholar; Gráinne de Burea, The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi, Jean Monnet Working Paper 01/09 (2009), available at www.JeanMonnetProgram.org (accessed Apr. 3, 2009). See also the position taken by the European Commission in Kadi, ¶¶ 269-70, 319; but see Kunoy, Bjørn and Dawes, Anthony, Plate tectonics in Luxembourg, 46 C.M.L.Rev. 73, 103-04 (2009)Google Scholar.

36 S.C. Res. 1822 (June 30, 2008) at ¶¶ 13, 25, 26. on more recent developments, see S.C. Res. 1904 (Dec. 17, 2009) at ¶¶ 20-27; Fromuth, Peter, The European Court of Justice Kadi decision and the Future of UN Counterterrorism Sanctions , 13:20 ASIL Insight, Oct. 30, 2009, available at www.ASIL.org (visited Mar. 4, 2010)Google Scholar.

37 Similarly, Koh, Harold Hongju, international Law as Part of Our Law, 98 AJIL 43-57 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int’l L. J. 191-219 (2003)Google Scholar; O’Connor, Sandra Day, Keynote Address, 96 ASIL Proc. 348 (2000)Google Scholar.