Dialogue and divergence: the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in German, American, and international courts.: An article from: Georgetown Journal of International Law

This digital document is an article from Georgetown Journal of International Law, published by Georgetown University Law Center on January 1, 2011. The length of the article is 14440 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

From the author: For a decade the United States' Supreme Court, the German Federal Constitutional Court, and the International Court of Justice struggled with whether the failure to inform foreign nationals accused of a crime of their right to consular aid was a violation of international law. The courts talked down to, past, and over each other but consistently failed to engage in meaningful judicial dialogue on the role of international law in domestic courts. The paper looks at how faced with seemingly similar factual situations, the Federal Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court came to opposite legal conclusions. An exploration into the source of this divergence demonstrates that it derives less from legal framework and more from deeper socio-cultural elements. The search for what makes these cases fundamentally different reveals not just a different way of seeing one particular treaty, but two contrary conceptualizations of the role of international law and international legal bodies in an increasingly globalized legal world.

Citation Details
Title: Dialogue and divergence: the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in German, American, and international courts.
Author: Riley J. Graebner
Publication:Georgetown Journal of International Law (Magazine/Journal)
Date: January 1, 2011
Publisher: Georgetown University Law Center
Volume: 42 Issue: 2 Page: 605(34)

Distributed by Gale, a part of Cengage Learning