On June 27, , the ICJ, rejecting all of the United States’ arguments, ruled in favor of Germany. The ICJ held that the Vienna. 1 LaGrand (Germany v United States of America) (hereafter ‘LaGrand Case’) may Not only did the ICJ state, for the first time in the history of its existence, the. The German’s (P) case involved LaGrand and his brother who were executed before the matter came to the I.C.J. the Court found that the U.S. (D) had breached.
|Published (Last):||21 September 2017|
|PDF File Size:||13.16 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Germany accordingly claims that it “was injured in the person of its two nationals”, a claim which Germany raises “as a matter of diplomatic protection on behalf of Walter and Karl LaGrand”.
La Grand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), I.C.J. (June 27)
The travaux preparatoires of the Vienna Convention according to the United Cas, do not reflect a consensus that Article 36 was addressing immutable individual rights, as opposed to individual rights derivative of the rights of States. It maintains that it is merely asking the Court to adjudge and declare that the conduct of the United States was inconsistent with its international legal obligations towards Germany under the Vienna Convention, and to draw from this failure certain legal consequences provided for in the international law of State responsibility.
The Committee of Jurists eventually adopted a draft Article 39, which amended the former Article 2bis only in its French version: At the hearings, Members of the Court put questions to Germany, to which replies were given in writing, in accordance with Article 61, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court.
In so doing the state exercising diplomatic protection is in reality asserting its own right to have its nationals treated consistently with international law. It maintains that the treatment due to individuals under the Convention is inextricably linked to and derived from lagranr right of the State, acting through its consular officer, to communicate with its nationals, and does not lahrand a fundamental right or a human right.
Melbourne Journal of International Law
President Guillaume makes the following declaration: For the United States: The United States argues further that Germany’s first submission, as far as it cass its right to exercise diplomatic protection with respect to its nationals, is inadmissible on the ground that the LaGrands did not exhaust local remedies. The applicant argued that the conduct of the US authorities also entailed a violation of individual rights under Art.
This statement went substantially further than the amicus brief referred to in a mere footnote in his letter, which was filed on behalf of the United States in earlier proceedings before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Angel Francisco Breard see Breard v.
The ICJ has effectively concluded that where a national of a sending state has been subject to prolonged detention or has been sentenced to severe penalties it is only by belated caae to the purposes for which article 36 rights were conferred that there can be an effective remedy for the prior breach lagrans those rights.
In the second submission, Germany asks the Court to interpret the scope kcj Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention; the third submission seeks a finding that the United States violated an Order issued by this Court pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute; and in Germany’s fourth submission, the Lagrnd is asked to determine the applicable remedies for the alleged violations of the Convention.
Walter LaGrand was executed March 3,by lethal gasand currently remains the last person executed by that method in the United States. One could also have imagined that lagfand rule of procedural default could have been systematically put aside when a violation of the VCCR had been alleged at a late stage of a proceeding.
It was with a certain reluctance that I voted in favour of operative paragraph 3 and 4 of the Court’s Judgment. This fact does not prevent a State party to a treaty, which creates individual rights, from taking up the case of one of its nationals and instituting international judicial proceedings on behalf of that national, on the basis of a general jurisdictional clause in such a treaty.
The Court will now consider the Order of 3 ,agrand After interpreting Article 41, the Court found that such orders did have binding effect. The Court having found that lqgrand United States violated the rights accorded by Article 36, paragraph 1, to the Iicj brothers, it does not appear necessary to it to consider the additional argument developed by Germany in this regard.
A Functional Approach Germany claims that it subsequently lagran the LaGrands’ attorneys to investigate the LaGrands’ childhood in Germany, and to raise the issue of the omission of consular advice in further proceedings before the federal courts. The United States also argues that Germany’s third submission is inadmissible because of the manner in which these proceedings were brought before the Court by Germany.
At the hearings, Germany further contended that icm right of the individual to be informed without delay under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention was not only an individual right, but has today assumed the character of a human right. Les ordonnances en indication de mesures conservatoires rendues par la Cour internationale de Justice dans les affaires Breard Paraguay c. Additionally, Germany seeks from the United States that “in any future cases of detention of or criminal proceedings lagrajd German nationals, the United States will ensure in law and practice the effective exercise of the rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations”.
It was only because the rights of the LaGrand brothers and Germany coincided that Germany was able to assert its customary international law right to espouse the claims of its nationals. Clearly, the effect of this clause is to limit the scope of Article 36 to facilitation of the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State.
It has now found itself to possess an essential incident of an effective judicial body: In the view of the United States: In this regard, the fact that in Articles 56 to 60 of the Court’s Statute, both the word “decision” and the word “judgment” are used does little to clarify the matter. It is also noteworthy that the Governor of Arizona, to whom the [p ] Court’s Order had been transmitted, decided not to give effect to it, even though the Arizona Clemency Laggrand had recommended a stay of execution for Walter LaGrand.
United States of America – Request for the indication of provisional measures – Court to give its decision today, Wednesday 3 March at 7 p. Presentations on the work of the Court. The United States position is that its “competent authorities” for the purposes of Article 36, paragraph 1 bof the Vienna Convention were the arresting and ij authorities, and that these became aware of the German nationality of the LaGrands by late lagrxnd, and possibly by mid or earlier, but in any event not at the time of their arrest in Theodor Meron, Ms Catherine W.
Judge Oda also indicated that, in retrospect, he would vote against the indication of provisional measures.
The United States argues that the fact that Article 36 by its terms recognizes the rights of individuals does not determine the nature of those rights or the remedies required under the Vienna Convention for breaches of that Article.
Concerning Germany’s claims of violation of Article 36, paragraph 1 a and cthe United States however calls these claims “particularly misplaced” on the grounds that the “underlying conduct complained of is the same” as the claim of the violation of Article 36, paragraph 1 b. Turning now to the “procedural default” rule, the application of which in the present case Germany alleges violated Article 36, paragraph 2, the Court emphasizes that a distinction must be drawn between that rule as such and its specific application in the present case.
Counsel assigned to the LaGrands failed to raise this point earlier in a timely fashion. However, despite this apparent limitation in the scope of article 36, there are compelling reasons for regarding article 36 as conferring rights that have the character of human rights.