Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:52:08.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Provisional Measures, U.S. Treaty Obligations, and the States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Louis Henkin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Paraguay v. United States, the International Court of Justice entered the following Order: The Court “[i]ndicates the following provisional measures: The United States should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco Breard is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings, and should inform the Court of all the measures which it has taken in implementation of this Order.”

Type
Agora: Breard
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 92 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 679 - 683
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Para. v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, dispositif para. 41 (Order of Apr. 9, 1998) ‹http://www.icj-cij.org›.

3 Letter from U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to James S. Gilmore III, Governor of Virginia (Apr. 13, 1998), excerpted in N.Y. Times, Apr. 14, 1998, at A14.

3 See generally Rosalyn Higgins, Interim Measures for the Protection of Human Bights, in Politics, Values and Functions: International Law in the 21st Century 87 (Jonathan I. Charney, Donald K. Anton & Mary Ellen O'Connell eds., 1997).

4 ICJ Statute, June 26, 1945, Art. 58, 59 Stat. 1055, TS No. 993.

5 John Marshall, quoted in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936).

6 See Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §111 (1987) [hereinafter Restatement].

7 Breard v. Greene, 118 S.Ct. 1352, 1356 (1998) (“unfortunate” circumstance of the ICJ proceeding; “ [n]onetheless, this Court must decide questions presented to it on the basis of law”).

8 Compare Sanitary Dist. v. United States, 262 U.S. 405, 425–26 (1925) (U.S. may bring bill in equity to enjoin action by state agency in order, inter alia, to carry out U.S. treaty obligation; “Attorney General by virtue of his office may bring the proceeding and no statute is necessary to authorize the suit.”); United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 194 (1926) (original proceeding by U.S. against Minnesota; U.S. had the right to invoke the aid of a court of equity in removing unlawful obstacles to the fulfillment of its obligations under an Indian treaty).

9 See United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942).

10 315 U.S. at 329–30. See also Restatement, supra note 6, §1 reporters' note 4; Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution 54–61 (2d ed. 1996).

11 318 U.S. 578, 589 (1943).

12 324 U.S. 30, 38 (1945).

13 Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968).

14 See United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 112 (1941).

15 See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

16 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

17 See, e.g., Asakura v. Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924).

18 Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 575–76 (1840).

19 United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937).

20 The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 606 (1889).

21 United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 233 (1942). Compare Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 413–14 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.). See also Calhoun: “In our relation to the rest of the world … the States disappear.” 29 Annals of Cong. 531 (1815–16).

22 U.S. Const. Art. II.

23 Id., Art. VI.