However when review was requested by one of the defendants Medellin following

However when review was requested by one of the

This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 34 pages.

However, when review was requested by one of the defendants (Medellin) following the ICJ decision, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court found that pursuant to the U.S. Constitution the decision of the ICJ did not have direct effect within the United States. Instead, there had to be intervention either by the executive (President) or legislature (Congress) to transpose these international law obligations into U.S. domestic law. After this judgment, Mexico made a further application to the ICJ on behalf of its nationals seeking clarification of the original ICJ decision and requesting a provisional measure (injunctive relief) protecting the defendants from execution until the Court had considered this application or they had received review and reconsideration within the United States. The ICJ granted this interim order. At the same time, the lawyers for the defendants sought a stay of execution from the U.S. Supreme Court until the Congress, the President or the State of Texas indicated that there would be legislative action to implement the decision of the ICJ. On 5 August 2009, the Supreme Court declined to grant the stay. Medellin was executed the following day by the State of Texas. The ICJ rendered its decision on the second application by Mexico in January 2009. Readings All students are required to read the text highlighted in bold text and marked with ** below. For the purposes of our discussion, students selected to lead the class discussion will only need to read the paragraphs of the decisions indicated and not the entire judgments. It is advisable that you read them in the order that they appear below. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 2001 , ICJ Reports 2001, p.466 at paras.15, 16, 75-77, 88-91 (available on UTS Online)
Image of page 11
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (70108) LEARNING GUIDE Autumn 2020 12 **Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment of 31 March 2004, ICJ Reports 2004 , p.12 at paras.15-21, 27-28, 31-34, 64, 107-113, 115-123, 128-133, 138-140, 146, 150-152 (available on UTS Online) Medellin v. Texas, (Judgment) 552 U.S. (2008), 128 S. Ct. 1346 (2008), Syllabus (pp.1-6) and dissenting decision of Justice Breyer (pp. 16, 18-32) (available on UTS Online) LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 2001 , ICJ Reports 2001, p.466 at paras.98-110 (available on UTS Online) Medellin v. Texas (On Application for Stay and on Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus), 554 U.S. (2008), (citation omitted), per Curiam, and dissenting decision of Justice Breyer (available on UTS Online)
Image of page 12
Image of page 13

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture