extradite alleged terrorists if the suspects are threatened with the death penalty" (131).
However, in the absence of an extradition situation, at present no opportunity exists to challenge directly the validity of American death penalty statutes under international law because: (1) Duxbury pointed out that under Article 34(1) of the 1945 Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), only states and not individuals, NGOs or corporations can appear before the Court to argue violations of human rights under international law (141); and (b) the illegality of the death penalty has not yet become an "international custom . . . a general practice accepted as law" by all "civilized nations" (Art. 38 ICJ Statute). The United States has indicated on a number of occasions its unwillingness to be bound by any such determination. See, for example, its 1992 reservations to its ratification of the 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (Sherman 73). Schabas, a Canadian opponent of the death penalty, acknowledges that "it is too early to speak of customary or universal norms" which render the death penalty illegal under international law (International 845).
The death penalty has, however, come under indirect attack in a number of American and international courts as a result of violations by American criminal law enforcement authorities of the Vienna Convention.
Department of State's Advice to State of Texas
1. The Department of State does not believe that the State of Texas is obliged under the Constitution to reverse the defendant's conviction or to stay his execution.
Under Article VI of the Constitution "all Treaties made . . . under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land" and, therefore, supercede Texas law. The United States is a party to the Vienna Convention. The record in this case indicates that local law enforcement authorities violated its terms. If a Stat...