Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. American Journal of International Law
  4. Volume 102
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 102 - April 2008

Contents

Page 2 of 8

International Decisions

Agora: Medellín

  • Less Than Zero?

  • Carlos Manuel Vázquez
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 February 2017, pp. 563-572

  • Medellín v. Texas is the first case in which the Supreme Court has denied a treaty-based claim solely on the ground that the treaty relied upon was non-self-executing. In Foster v. Neilson, the only other case in which the Court had denied relief on this ground, the Court offered its view that the treaty was non-self-executing as an alternative ground for denying relief. The Court soon thereafter disavowed its conclusion that the treaty involved in Foster was non-selfexecuting, and, in the intervening years, it repeatedly declined invitations to deny relief on this or related grounds. Many observers (including me) thought that the Court would again skirt a ruling on non-self-execution in Medellín because the president had issued a memorandum ordering compliance with the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Avena. After all, the Court in American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi had recently struck down a California law on the ground that it conflicted with a “policy” reflected in certain sole executive agreements. The president in Medellín seemed to be standing on stronger ground, as he was insisting that state law give way to an obligation imposed by a treaty that had received the consent of the Senate and was accordingly the supreme law of the land. But the Court defied this expectation, with potentially regrettable results for the law of treaties.

International Decisions

Editorial Comment

International Decisions

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Notes and Comments

International Decisions

General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Current Developments

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

General International and U.S. Foreign Relations Law

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

International Decisions

Page 2 of 8