Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T06:25:59.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ICJ Rejects Mexico's Request to Interpret Avena but Finds United States Violated Provisional Measures Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

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
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 103 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 362 - 364
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 Avena (Mex. v. U.S), 2004 ICJ Rep. 128 (Mar. 31).

2 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mex. v. U.S.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Jan. 19, 2009).

3 John R., Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 102 AJIL 860 (2008)Google Scholar.

4 International Court of Justice Press Release No. 2008/33, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America) (Oct. 8, 2008).

5 President Higgins, Vice-president Al-Khasawneh, and Judges Ranjeva, Koroma, Buergenthal, Owada, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, and Skotnikov voted to reject Mexico’s application. Judge Sepulveda-Amor supported granting the requested interpretation, and entered a vigorous eighteen-page dissent.

6 Request for Interpretation, paras. 44–46.

7 Id., paras. 52–53.

8 Id., paras. 44–45.

9 Id., paras. 58–60.