AMERICAN DEATH PENALTY CASES AND THE WORLD COURT

This brief addresses the issues posed under American and international law by cases in which foreign nationals who are arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for capital crimes in the United States have not been informed of their rights to contact and seek assistance from their consulates there under Article 36(1) of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention). The Vienna Convention has been signed by 160 nations and was ratified by the United States in 1969. Article 36(1) provides that if defendants who are foreign nationals are arrested or detained, the "competent authorities" of the arresting state must notify the nearest consulate of that defendant and inform that person of his or her right to contact such a consulate.

Among developed nations, only Japan and the United States retain the death penalty for certain crimes. According to Schabas, 102 of the nations of the world have abolished the death penalty, while 90 nations retain it (The 445; and International 812). Givelber says that in Europe there is a broad consensus that "capital punishment offends basic norms of human rights" (167). Although it has placed constitutional limits on the imposition of the death penalty, the American Supreme Court has generally left intact death penalty laws. Some 38 states have retained or instituted the death penalty since the early 1970s. According to Demleitner, 540 persons were executed between 1

. . .
a six to three vote refused to interfere with the execution of a Paraguayan national who was found guilty by a Virginia court of a capital crime. That decision rested in part on Paraguay's failure to show that the violation of the Vienna Convention had a prejudicial effect on Breard's conviction or sentence. In this case, there is no showing that the failure by Texas to inform the defendant of his right to consult his consulate and to obtain its assistance in fact had such a prejudicial effect. The other ground used by the Court to deny the petition for a stay in Breard, namely, that the violation of the Vienna Convention had not been raised in state court is apparently not a factor in this case. 2. The decision of ICJ in the LaGrand case is not binding on courts in the State of Texas because ICJ lacks the power to issue provisional orders to American courts and because its interpretation of international law is over-reaching. In the 2001 LaGrand case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany instituted an action against the American government before ICJ. The LaGrand brothers, Karl and Walter, German nationals, were convicted of murder and other capital crimes arising out of their 1982 bank robbery
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Vienna Convention, Court United, ICJ LaGrand, Supreme Court, According Schabas, International Law, Schabas Canadian, ICJ Statute, Justice ICJ, Demleitner European, vienna convention, death penalty, international law, supreme court, american courts, journal international law, journal international, violations vienna convention, human rights, summer 2002, icj lagrand, violations vienna, international law 27, yale journal international, law 27 summer,
Approximate Word count = 2214
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)

More Essays on AMERICAN DEATH PENALTY CASES AND THE WORLD COURT