The Supreme Court recently voted to allow the state of Texas to execute a Mexican national who was denied the opportunity to confer with his consulate upon arrest. This decision represents a blatant rejection of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and a complete disregard for ICJ rulings; it's an extension of the ethnocentric position the U.S. maintains in the international sphere, and this recklessness jeopardizes the rights of Americans, as well as citizens of other nations alike.
Medellin, the defendant, participated in the brutal rape and murder of two young women. But despite the horrific nature of the crime, it's important to defend the principles outlined in the Vienna convention as we cannot disregard the spirit of the treaty and its function to provide fundamental legal rights to all.
It's becoming increasingly apparent that people are comparing the Vienna Convention to other international bodies, including and particularly, the ICESC. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides comprehensive recommendations for states on the right adequate employment, standard of living, education, heath and right to express culture. This covenant extends no immediate obligation to the participating state, and a state commits itself to the maximum it could provide based on its resources. These are not self-executing rights and individuals cannot sue the state for not having adequate housing. On the contrary, the Vienna Convention codifies existing norms in the international community, and the extent to which such rights are not honored bear severe consequences that could potentially cause global dissonance. There is a clear difference between economic and cultural rights that ought to be enjoyed by all and clearly binding rights outlined in the Vienna Convention. The U.S. ratified the treaty, which enters into force once signed by a state.
While there is a window for interpretation on whether or not this particular treaty is self-executing, or the extent to which it constitutes binding international law, there are more compelling reasons for the Supreme Court to honor the decision by the International Court of Justice. Multilateral treaties are important because they have the potential to provide a forum for international dialogue. Such bodies encourage transparency among states, reduce human rights violations, and promote peace by mediating between states. Furthermore, a legal conundrum surfaces when parties are constituents of one country while residing in another. The International Court of Justice plays a crucial role in mediating disputes between involving more than one nation state. Instead of arbitrarily choosing one domestic system over another, we need this body to oversee such disputes in an independent court setting.
The U.S. often appeals to the ICJ on behalf of its own citizens and just as we expect others to hold such rulings to high regard, we must do the same for other states. If judges in other countries were to deny American citizens these same rights by arguing they are not "self-executing" in the absence of a domestic law component, Americans would be outraged. Commitment to honoring ICJ decisions is necessary to obtain valuable concessions from other states. Other states are more likely to respect and adhere to international standards, particularly toward Americans if the U.S. honors the same standards. If we truly have no regard for the ICJ and the rights outlined in the Vienna Convention, there is no reason to protest the next time an American is detained in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or any other state—regardless of the state's friendliness or hostility toward us.
Too often we forget that compliance is necessary in order to establish consensus in the international community. The extent to which our country complies with international norms has significant reverberations across the globe and directly influences how other states behave.