World Court claims U.S. jurisdiction
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
NEW YORK -- The International Court of Justice yesterday criticized the state of Arizona for executing a German national in defiance of its wishes, insisting in its most explicit language that ICJ orders are binding on U.S. and other national courts. Top Stories
• China, N. Korea hit with sanctions
• Rights panelists exchange accusations
• Fed cuts rates by quarter point
• Faith plan tweaked to address Constitutional issues
• Inner Loop grinds to a halt
American authorities were scrambling yesterday to understand the consequences. They could not say whether the judgment would open the United States to financial claims from Germany, or whether the ruling would have any material impact on the U.S. legal system.
"The case presented complex issues and the decision requires careful study," said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker.
"We are undertaking a close and careful review of it in its entirety."
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, had previously criticized the United States for breaching the Vienna Convention by failing to meet its obligation to notify a consulate when foreign nationals were charged with crimes.
In March 1999, Arizona executed Walter LaGrand, an indigent German national who with his brother was convicted of fatally stabbing a bank manager during a botched robbery in 1982.
At the request of Germany, the Hague-based World Court issued a provisional order -- a sort of injunction -- ordering Arizona not to execute him until it could make a final ruling on the matter. LaGrand was executed, as scheduled, the following day.
The court criticized the U.S. solicitor general and the governor of Arizona for treating its provisionary order as "mere exhortation."
Because the court can take more than two years to decide a case, these provisional orders are most often injunctions, intended to freeze the action until the court can rule.
"By failing to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand was not executed pending the [ICJ's] final decision ... the United States breached the obligation incumbent upon it," the judges wrote in a majority opinion.
The ICJ hears disputes between nations. Its decisions are considered binding and can only be appealed through the U.N. Security Council. Yesterday's ruling essentially reinforced that.
"This is an interesting step forward in terms of the ICJ asserting itself," said Lee Casey, a former Justice Department lawyer and expert on international law.
"It shows that the court is being more assertive than it has been in the past, and given where we are in the development of international law and these new criminal courts, that's important."
Mr. Casey said the ICJ is clearly concerned that the U.S. government did not do enough to compel the state of Arizona to comply with its order. "But the federal government doesn't necessarily have the authority to do that."