do Case Briefs and Analyses: The World Court

do Case Briefs and Analyses: The World Court

Read
A treaty can have the same force and effect of law domestically as does a statute. However, both are subject to the U.S. Constitution. When a treaty and a statute are in conflict with one another, the one enacted or created “last in time,” meaning most recently, controls. Where a treaty, for various reasons, cannot be enforced in domestic courts, that treaty still has the force and effect of international law.
Some treaties are self-executing while others are not. If self-executing, the treaty creates rights and duties without the need for implementing legislation and is typically enforceable in the U.S. legal system. A non-self-executing treaty must be implemented by statute. No consensus exists as to which is which, or whether a treaty is presumed to be one over the other. In fact, in 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee changed the format of its reports on pending treaties to include in its draft resolution the self- or non-self-executing nature of treaty provisions. While this helps the dilemma going forward, it does not affect prior agreements.
In the 1998 case of Breard v. Greene, the United States was placed at odds with the International Court of Justice when an international agreement and a subsequently enacted U.S. statute conflicted with one another. The United States Supreme Court had to determine what rights and obligations were superior.
A decade later, in Medellin v. Texas, the Supreme Court took a look at the obligation (or lack thereof) — of American states to obey a judgment of the World Court on the legal rights of foreign nationals arrested and prosecuted for crimes in those states.

Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998) (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Medellin v. Texas, 522 U.S. 491 (2008) (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Brief