Skip to main content
Unpublished Paper
Inflated Federalism and Deflated International Law: Roberts CJ v. The ICJ
ExpressO (2011)
  • Winston P Nagan
  • Benjamin Goodman
Abstract
This Article is a critical review of the US Supreme Court’s response to the question of the degree of deference that the domestic courts of the United States should give to a ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled that United States was not in compliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). The Medellin Case came before the Court as an appeal for the stay of Medellin’s execution upon a request that the Court consider the conviction in the Texas’ Courts as been incompatible with the ruling of the ICJ. The ruling of the Supreme Court was wide ranging touching on some of the most important questions of the separation of powers under the US Constitution and the impact of international law in clarifying the reach of those powers. Additionally, the Court’s judgment gives weight to principles of federalist sovereignty which in outcome trump international law. This article provides a historic analysis of the role of international law in the context of US Constitution, it examines the influence of the Federalist Society which has been a significant force in seeking to diminish the influence of international law in shaping the boundaries of US sovereignty. The article provides a critical analysis of both the strengths and the flaws in the reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts. The article also concludes with the state of the law in this area as it is now.
Keywords
  • Mexico v. United States,
  • recognition in the US of the judgment of the ICJ,
  • the jurisprudence of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court
Disciplines
Publication Date
July 26, 2011
Citation Information
Winston P Nagan and Benjamin Goodman. "Inflated Federalism and Deflated International Law: Roberts CJ v. The ICJ" ExpressO (2011)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/winston_nagan/6/