Three Narratives of Medellín v. Texas

Authors

Margaret E. McGuiness, St. John's University School of LawFollow

Document Type

Essay

Publication Title

Suffolk Transnational Law Review

Publication Date

2008

Volume

31

First Page

227

Abstract

(Excerpt)

Every once in a while, a Supreme Court case comes along that holds a mirror up to the changing face of the American polity. Medellín v. Texas (Medellín II) is such a case, reflecting divisive national debates over immigration, the death penalty, victims' rights, the scope of executive power, U.S. adherence to international human rights standards, the salience of international law to national security, and the appropriate role of judicial review of political decisions. Which of those issues stands out among the reflected images depends on who is peering into the mirror.

For international law scholars, the significance of Medellín II lies in its reflection of America's relationship with the world, and in particular America's current ambivalence toward international law and the international regulation of human rights. Medellín II is one in the line of criminal cases in which foreign nationals challenged the failure of law enforcement officials to meet the consular notification requirements of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), cases that arose because the United States retains the death penalty in the face of international legal abolition. Thus, United States participation in the VCCR—a multinational treaty that codified traditional sovereign prerogatives to protect and provide services to nationals living in foreign states—provided an unexpected portal into the United States courts. This VCCR "norm portal" afforded transnational advocacy networks an opportunity to successfully challenge death penalty practices in the United States.

Comments

Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1132370