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):||11 December 2011|
|PDF File Size:||1.83 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.39 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
However, this preliminary finding may cause serious consequences for a respondent state. It has now found itself to possess an essential incident of an effective judicial body: Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention reads as follows: In the course of the written proceedings, the ic submissions were presented by the Parties: The Court will now consider the Order of 3 March Do binding provisional measures ordered by the ICJ offer greater promise as a mechanism for protecting human rights?
In an Order of 3 Marchthis Court found that the circumstances required it to indicate, as a matter of the greatest urgency and without any other proceedings, provisional measures in accordance with Article 41 of its Statute and with Article 75, paragraph 1, of its Rules I. Thus, the Court has reached the conclusion that orders on provisional measures under Article 41 have binding effect. Nowhere in the Preamble of the Convention is reference made to lagraand creation of rights of individuals under the Convention.
However, in order to avoid any ambiguity, it should be made clear that there can be no question of applying an a contrario interpretation to this paragraph.
Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State.
However, while the IACHR advisory opinion laggrand such a purposive link explicit using the language of human rights, the ICJ found it unnecessary to venture into a discussion of human rights jurisprudence.
The Court considers that lagran dispute regarding the appropriate remedies for the violation of the Convention alleged by Germany is a dispute that arises out of the interpretation or application of the Convention and thus is within the Court’s jurisdiction. The United States is also conducting training programmes reaching out to all levels of government.
Germany was only made aware of the detention of the LaGrands by the brothers themselves in The Court does not agree with these arguments of the United [p ] States concerning the admissibility of the second, third and fourth German submissions. On 24 Februarycertain last-minute federal court proceedings brought by Karl LaGrand ultimately proved to be unsuccessful.
Germany based its right kcj diplomatic protection on customary law. Organs and agencies authorized to request advisory opinions. In that amicus brief, the same Solicitor General had declared less than a year earlier that “there is substantial disagreement among jurists as to whether an ICJ order indicating provisional measures is binding. However the Arizona authorities failed to do this even after they became aware that the LaGrands were Vase nationals. It passed as such into the Statute of the present Court without any discussion in Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
The ILC, in the articles adopted on first and second reading, classified guarantees and assurances of non-repetition together with cessation, as measures of strengthened primary obligations Art. By letter of 26 Octoberthe Agent lagrnd Germany expressed his Government’s desire to produce five new documents in accordance with Article 56 of the Rules.
Melbourne Journal of International Law
The Court considers that the commitment expressed by the United States to ensure implementation of the specific measures adopted in performance of its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1 bmust be regarded as meeting Germany’s request for a general assurance of non-repetition.
The Court agrees that due to the extremely late presentation of the request for provisional measures, there was certainly very little time for the United States authorities to act. On 2 Marchthe day on which the Application was filed, the German Government also filed in the Registry of the Court a request for the indication of provisional measures based icu Article 41 of the Statute and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court.
This submission inevitably raised the question of determination of the binding or indicative nature of provisional measures under Art.
La Grand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), I.C.J. (June 27)
Under these circumstances, the procedural default rule had the effect of preventing “full effect [from being] given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this article are intended”, and thus violated paragraph 2 of Article 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.
One of these claims was that the United States authorities had failed to notify the German consulate of their arrest, as required by the Vienna Convention.
Germany also claims that the violation by the United States of Article 36, paragraph 1 bled to consequential violations of Article 36, paragraph 1 a and c. However, as Hugh Caae has noted, it is one thing to suggest that parties should not frustrate the judicial process, and quite another to suggest that parties are bound to follow a decision of the ICJ not to do so. The third submission of Germany concerns issues that arise directly out of the dispute between the Parties before the Court over which the Court has already held that it has jurisdiction see paragraph 42 aboveand which are thus covered by Article I lagrxnd the Optional Protocol.
This was the first time in the court’s history it had ruled as such. The Court will now examine the other assurances sought by Germany in its fourth submission. The United States has presented an apology to Germany for this breach. During the negotiating sessions of the Vienna Conference, a number of delegations stressed the importance of the draft subparagraph.
Oxford Public International Law: LaGrand Case (Germany v United States of America)
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 detaining authorities, and that these became aware of the German nationality of the LaGrands by lateand possibly by mid or earlier, but in any event not at the time of their arrest in Quite a caae of States, though in agreement with the formulation of the principle in the draft, were much concerned about the heavy burden that the mandatory consular notification would impose on the receiving State, particularly on those States on whose territories there are a sizeable number of resident aliens [p ] and foreign tourists or other short-term visitors.
Presentations on the work of the Court. These are consequently disputes within the meaning of Article I of the Optional Protocol.
In the absence of agreement between the parties in this respect, it is appropriate to refer to paragraph 4 of Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which in the view of the Court again pagrand customary international law.
Although the ICJ now looks more like a labrand than it ever has before, it remains an unsuitable forum for protecting human rights or for vindicating their breach. At the oral proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the Parties: It has been speculated that this issue was settled by the ICJ because of the specific context of the case and it has also been assumed that the ICJ wanted, at this point in time, to equate its practice to that of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ITLOS who had not had the binding nature of its orders questioned see Frowein at On 14 Decembereach was sentenced to death for first degree murder and to concurrent sentences of imprisonment for the other charges.
The Court will first examine the question of its jurisdiction with respect to the first submission of Germany.
It begins with the basic principle governing consular protection: Finally, the Court will consider Germany’s fourth submission, in which it asks the Court to adjudge and declare “that the United States shall provide Germany an assurance that it will not repeat its unlawful acts and that, in any future cases of detention of or criminal proceedings against German nationals, the United States will ensure in law and practice the effective exercise of [p ] the rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The review of the above steps taken by the authorities of the United States with regard to the Order of the International Court of Justice of 3 March indicates that the various competent United States authorities failed to take all the steps they could have taken to give effect to the Lavrand Order. This was an important opportunity missed.
The first was the extraordinarily short time between issuance of the Court’s Order and the time set for the execution of Walter LaGrand. The dispute which exists between the Parties lagrahd regard to this point essentially concerns the interpretation of Article 41, which is worded in identical terms in the Statute of each Court apart from the respective references to the Council of the League of Nations and the Security Council. The United States further contends that it “has already provided appropriate assurances to Germany on this point”.