Abstract
After the LaGrand case was decided and the LaGrand brothers were executed, a complicated series of events and legal proceedings brought the United States back before the ICJ and led to another conflict over the implementation of that court’s judgment. Both the American judicial system and the executive branch became involved in the response to the case brought to the ICJ by Mexico and known as The Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America),1 often referred to as Avena. Because the developments in this litigation are unusually complex, this chapter begins with a brief chronology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Bruno Simma and Carston Hoppe, “The LaGrand Case: A Study of Many Miscommunications,” in International Law Stories, ed. John E. Noyes, Laura A Dickinson, and Mark W. Janis (New York: Foundation Press, 2007), 390.
Patrick Timmons, “Seed of Abolition: Experience and Culture in the Desire to End Capital Punishment in Mexico,” in The Cultural Lives of Capital Punishment: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Austin Sarat and Christian Boulanger (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), 70.
Alan Clarke and Laurelyn Whitt, The Bitter Fruit of American Justice: International and Domestic Resistance to the Death Penalty (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2007), 63–65.
Quoted in Alan Macina, “Avena and Other Mexican Nationals: The Litmus Test for LaGrand and the Future of Consular Rights in the United States,” California Western International Law Journal 34 (2003–2004), 138.
Adrienne M. Tranel, “The Ruling of the International Court of Justice in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals: Enforcing the Right to Consular Assistance in U.S. Jurisprudence,” American University International Law Review 20 (2004–2005), 445–46.
Luke T. Lee and John Quigley, Consular Law and Practice, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press: 2008), 174.
Jack King, “President Tries to Moot Texas Death Row Case: Withdraws from Treaty Provision,” National Association of Defense Lawyers: The Champion 29 (May 2005), 6.
Mani Sheik, “From Breard to Medellin: Supreme Court Inaction or ICJ Activism in the Field of International Law?” California Law Review 94 (2006), 562.
Joshua J. Newcomer, “Messing with Texas? Why President Bush’s Memorandum Order Trumps State Criminal Procedure.” Temple Law Review 79 (2006), 1055.
Mark Kadish and Charles C. Olsen, “Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon and Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: The Supreme Court, the Right to Consul, and Remediation,” Michigan Journal of International Law 27 (2005–2006), 1192–1193.
Ted Cruz, “Defending U.S. Sovereignty, Separation of Powers, and Federalism in Medellin v. Texas,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 33 (Winter 2010), 35.
Margaret E. McGuinness, “Medellin v. Texas,” The American Journal of International Law 102 (2008), 627.
Janet Koven Levit, “Does Medellin Matter?” Fordham Law Review 77 (2008–2009), 617.
Lucy Reed and Ilmi Granoff, “Treaties in US Domestic Law: Medellin v. Texas in Context,” The Law and Practice of International Courts 8 no.1 (March 2009), 16.
Copyright information
© 2015 Mary Welek Atwell
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Atwell, M.W. (2015). Avena: Mexico v. United States and the Case of Jose Medellin. In: An American Dilemma. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137270375_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137270375_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-66999-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-27037-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political Science CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)