Full Version: US Revokes Part of 1963 Vienna Convention
The Washington Post had an article today about a recent development - the US is withdrawing from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
If you'd like to read the actual 1963 Vienna Convention you can do so here.
The Washington Post article goes on to state:
At this point you may be thinking - so what? I was too, until I dug deeper on this and read through everything. Basically what this is doing is turning the Vienna Convention into a right without a remedy. So the rest of the convention may claim that US Citizens (and foreign nationals for that matter too) have a right to consular access if they are detained, but without the ICJ there is no remedy. It becomes a meaningless agreement for politicians to prattle on about.
So why is the administration doing this?
Questions for debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree with the administration's decision to pull out of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations causing Americans to lose protection abroad?
2. Is the ICJ's ruling an example of an international body exerting to much influence on the United States or are we just being asked to play by the same rules we hold others to?
QUOTE
In a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969.
The protocol requires signatories to let the International Court of Justice (ICJ) make the final decision when their citizens say they have been illegally denied the right to see a home-country diplomat when jailed abroad.
The United States initially backed the measure as a means to protect its citizens abroad. It was also the first country to invoke the protocol before the ICJ, also known as the World Court, successfully suing Iran for the taking of 52 U.S. hostages in Tehran in 1979.
But in recent years, other countries, with the support of U.S. opponents of capital punishment, successfully complained before the World Court that their citizens were sentenced to death by U.S. states without receiving access to diplomats from their home countries.
The protocol requires signatories to let the International Court of Justice (ICJ) make the final decision when their citizens say they have been illegally denied the right to see a home-country diplomat when jailed abroad.
The United States initially backed the measure as a means to protect its citizens abroad. It was also the first country to invoke the protocol before the ICJ, also known as the World Court, successfully suing Iran for the taking of 52 U.S. hostages in Tehran in 1979.
But in recent years, other countries, with the support of U.S. opponents of capital punishment, successfully complained before the World Court that their citizens were sentenced to death by U.S. states without receiving access to diplomats from their home countries.
If you'd like to read the actual 1963 Vienna Convention you can do so here.
The Washington Post article goes on to state:
QUOTE
The administration's decision does not affect the rest of the Vienna Convention, which requires its 166 signatories to inform foreigners of their right to see a home-country diplomat when detained overseas. But it shows that Washington's desire to counteract international pressure on the death penalty now weighs against a long-standing policy of ensuring the United States a forum in which to enforce its citizens' allegations of abuse.
At this point you may be thinking - so what? I was too, until I dug deeper on this and read through everything. Basically what this is doing is turning the Vienna Convention into a right without a remedy. So the rest of the convention may claim that US Citizens (and foreign nationals for that matter too) have a right to consular access if they are detained, but without the ICJ there is no remedy. It becomes a meaningless agreement for politicians to prattle on about.
So why is the administration doing this?
QUOTE
The administration's action comes after its Feb. 28 decision to grant 51 Mexicans on death row in Texas and elsewhere new state court hearings, as the ICJ had ordered.
But withdrawal from the protocol means that the United States will not have to bow to the ICJ again, legal analysts said.
But withdrawal from the protocol means that the United States will not have to bow to the ICJ again, legal analysts said.
Questions for debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree with the administration's decision to pull out of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations causing Americans to lose protection abroad?
2. Is the ICJ's ruling an example of an international body exerting to much influence on the United States or are we just being asked to play by the same rules we hold others to?
Thank you for this extremely interesting information.
This seems like a remarkably bad move on the part of the United States. Just looking at it from the viewpoint of self-interest, won't this encourage other nations to withdraw? Then we have American citizens held overseas with no way to enforce their rights.
I don't see evidence here that the ICJ exerts too much influence on the USA. After all, we're talking about people who are citizens of other nations. Surely the USA shouldn't claim absolute jurisdiction over non-citizens.
Frankly, this looks like another example of the Neoconservative desire to transform the USA from a shining light on a hill into Fortress America.
This seems like a remarkably bad move on the part of the United States. Just looking at it from the viewpoint of self-interest, won't this encourage other nations to withdraw? Then we have American citizens held overseas with no way to enforce their rights.
I don't see evidence here that the ICJ exerts too much influence on the USA. After all, we're talking about people who are citizens of other nations. Surely the USA shouldn't claim absolute jurisdiction over non-citizens.
Frankly, this looks like another example of the Neoconservative desire to transform the USA from a shining light on a hill into Fortress America.
1. Do you agree or disagree with the administration's decision to pull out of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations causing Americans to lose protection abroad?
I disagree with it in principle, because it's another example of this administration's tendency to overtly behave as if it believes there is something inherently superior about being American in its international relations.
Domestically, all governments have to treat their own citizens as if they are the best and noblest creatures on the planet if they are to prosper electorally (for an example of not doing so, see the British Conservative party's record in the government from about 1988 onwards.)
Internationally, though, one needs to at least pretend that other people are just as important if you want other countries to behave towards your citizens as you would, unless you plan to mount a full invasion every time an American citizen is arrested for anything.
This last point also means I also disagree in practice, because the net benefit is just as likely to be against the interests of the American people.
2. Is the ICJ's ruling an example of an international body exerting to much influence on the United States or are we just being asked to play by the same rules we hold others to?
You are being asked to play by the same rules that you hold others to. Again, this is not unique to this situation (the position on the ICC, the general US contempt for the UN and so on) and the underlying assumption of US superiority is one of the things other countries, especially other developed, civilised, free countries, find hard to deal with about the current adminsitration.
I don't deny that in many ways America IS superior, but the international perception is generally that the gap is uneven (America is worse off in almost as many ways as it is better off), and at its widest is not dramatic enough to justify the current administrations hubris.
I disagree with it in principle, because it's another example of this administration's tendency to overtly behave as if it believes there is something inherently superior about being American in its international relations.
Domestically, all governments have to treat their own citizens as if they are the best and noblest creatures on the planet if they are to prosper electorally (for an example of not doing so, see the British Conservative party's record in the government from about 1988 onwards.)
Internationally, though, one needs to at least pretend that other people are just as important if you want other countries to behave towards your citizens as you would, unless you plan to mount a full invasion every time an American citizen is arrested for anything.
This last point also means I also disagree in practice, because the net benefit is just as likely to be against the interests of the American people.
2. Is the ICJ's ruling an example of an international body exerting to much influence on the United States or are we just being asked to play by the same rules we hold others to?
You are being asked to play by the same rules that you hold others to. Again, this is not unique to this situation (the position on the ICC, the general US contempt for the UN and so on) and the underlying assumption of US superiority is one of the things other countries, especially other developed, civilised, free countries, find hard to deal with about the current adminsitration.
I don't deny that in many ways America IS superior, but the international perception is generally that the gap is uneven (America is worse off in almost as many ways as it is better off), and at its widest is not dramatic enough to justify the current administrations hubris.
1. Do you agree or disagree with the administration's decision to pull out of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations causing Americans to lose protection abroad?
I disagree. I have seen a continuing and escalating trend towards moving away from a possible peaceful relationship with the World at large from the Bush Admin. As if the Global sentiment towards the US wasn't bad enough, this is just fuel on the fire. As we legalize the US ability to detain people indefinitely, under the pretext of "anti-terrorism" actions, we are becomming more and more the picture of tyrrany in the world.
2. Is the ICJ's ruling an example of an international body exerting to much influence on the United States or are we just being asked to play by the same rules we hold others to?
We're just being asked to play by the same rules as everyone, and indeed the same rules that we have established. The right to a trial is a principle of American life as well. If "All men are created equal..." shouldn't that extend to non-citizens as well? Some of the very foundations of American Liberty are at risk in the War on Terror. We are moving away from being a "Representative Republic" in which the Government is supposedly bound by the Constitution, towards a more fascist Police State. We seem to be involved in a sort of Global Fascism that is escalating, and reversing many of the advances that have been made by humanity...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
I disagree. I have seen a continuing and escalating trend towards moving away from a possible peaceful relationship with the World at large from the Bush Admin. As if the Global sentiment towards the US wasn't bad enough, this is just fuel on the fire. As we legalize the US ability to detain people indefinitely, under the pretext of "anti-terrorism" actions, we are becomming more and more the picture of tyrrany in the world.
2. Is the ICJ's ruling an example of an international body exerting to much influence on the United States or are we just being asked to play by the same rules we hold others to?
We're just being asked to play by the same rules as everyone, and indeed the same rules that we have established. The right to a trial is a principle of American life as well. If "All men are created equal..." shouldn't that extend to non-citizens as well? Some of the very foundations of American Liberty are at risk in the War on Terror. We are moving away from being a "Representative Republic" in which the Government is supposedly bound by the Constitution, towards a more fascist Police State. We seem to be involved in a sort of Global Fascism that is escalating, and reversing many of the advances that have been made by humanity...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
1. Do you agree or disagree with the administration's decision to pull out of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations causing Americans to lose protection abroad?
I completely disagree with this decision. In the past (as cited in the article) the fact that we have been signatories on this convention and the optional protocol has given us leverage to protect our citizens abroad.
In true form for this administration, they are discarding anything that happens to get in their way, regardless of the consequences it might have down the road. Just because we might have to give some mexican nationals on death row in Texas a new trial (because we didn't follow this convention and allow them consular access during their first trial) the administration is ready to take their marbles and go home. We can't possibly be expected to be held to the same standards as everyone else, we are America afterall
I'm ready for America to start governing like an adult rather than a stroppy teen (as Julian would put it 
).
Really, what would be the harm in giving them a new trial and actually giving them the rights they were supposed to have had in the first place? If the case against them is solid then they should easily be found guilty again. If it wasn't and not having consular access had something to do with their imprisonment then by all means they should be found innocent.
2. Is the ICJ's ruling an example of an international body exerting to much influence on the United States or are we just being asked to play by the same rules we hold others to?
We are just being asked to play by the rules that everyone else does. This is one of those trends with this neo-conservative agenda that has a stranglehold on our country that really bothers me. Every move we make is always about America being superior and above the rules we have played by for decades. We don't need the international community getting in our way, we'll do as we please. It is a situation that if it continues I don't think the end result will be a good thing. Nothing may happen for years, but there will eventually be consequences for our actions.
I completely disagree with this decision. In the past (as cited in the article) the fact that we have been signatories on this convention and the optional protocol has given us leverage to protect our citizens abroad.
In true form for this administration, they are discarding anything that happens to get in their way, regardless of the consequences it might have down the road. Just because we might have to give some mexican nationals on death row in Texas a new trial (because we didn't follow this convention and allow them consular access during their first trial) the administration is ready to take their marbles and go home. We can't possibly be expected to be held to the same standards as everyone else, we are America afterall
I'm ready for America to start governing like an adult rather than a stroppy teen (as Julian would put it ).Really, what would be the harm in giving them a new trial and actually giving them the rights they were supposed to have had in the first place? If the case against them is solid then they should easily be found guilty again. If it wasn't and not having consular access had something to do with their imprisonment then by all means they should be found innocent.
2. Is the ICJ's ruling an example of an international body exerting to much influence on the United States or are we just being asked to play by the same rules we hold others to?
We are just being asked to play by the rules that everyone else does. This is one of those trends with this neo-conservative agenda that has a stranglehold on our country that really bothers me. Every move we make is always about America being superior and above the rules we have played by for decades. We don't need the international community getting in our way, we'll do as we please. It is a situation that if it continues I don't think the end result will be a good thing. Nothing may happen for years, but there will eventually be consequences for our actions.
How many times is "neo-con" going to be mentioned here? Is there anything indicating this is a "neo-con" move? The neo-con movement is about national defense, not some diplomatic decision regarding court cases. It's
Last I checked, their guiding principles were:
For those who can't (or won't) see the reasoning behind this, try to imagine what 51 new death penalty cases is going to cost the American taxpayer. The median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Appeals to death penalty cases account for 29% of that. link
The government will incur millions in additional expenses for this.
But that isn't why we're doing this.
Citizens of foreign countries could potentially be exempt from the death penalty if the ICJ.
From the original article:
Do we want an international body looking over the shoulder of our justice system? There is an increasing sense that that is exactly what the international community wants to do: impose its views on the US.
I do, however, agree with Julian that the net result of this could potentially be worse for US citizens in the long run. However, the US is in the rather unique position that it has other recourses to help its citizens out rather than relying on some international court. We can bring direct pressure (diplomatic, economic, social, even military) on pretty much any country on earth.
Imagine if every Mexican citizen arrested for jaywalking could demand access to a Mexican diplomat.
Last I checked, their guiding principles were:
QUOTE
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
linkresponsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
For those who can't (or won't) see the reasoning behind this, try to imagine what 51 new death penalty cases is going to cost the American taxpayer. The median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Appeals to death penalty cases account for 29% of that. link
The government will incur millions in additional expenses for this.
But that isn't why we're doing this.
Citizens of foreign countries could potentially be exempt from the death penalty if the ICJ.
From the original article:
QUOTE
"The International Court of Justice has interpreted the Vienna Consular Convention in ways that we had not anticipated that involved state criminal prosecutions and the death penalty, effectively asking the court to supervise our domestic criminal system," State Department spokeswoman Darla Jordan said yesterday.
Withdrawal from the protocol is a way of "protecting against future International Court of Justice judgments that might similarly interpret the consular convention or disrupt our domestic criminal system in ways we did not anticipate when we joined the convention," Jordan added.
Withdrawal from the protocol is a way of "protecting against future International Court of Justice judgments that might similarly interpret the consular convention or disrupt our domestic criminal system in ways we did not anticipate when we joined the convention," Jordan added.
Do we want an international body looking over the shoulder of our justice system? There is an increasing sense that that is exactly what the international community wants to do: impose its views on the US.
I do, however, agree with Julian that the net result of this could potentially be worse for US citizens in the long run. However, the US is in the rather unique position that it has other recourses to help its citizens out rather than relying on some international court. We can bring direct pressure (diplomatic, economic, social, even military) on pretty much any country on earth.
Imagine if every Mexican citizen arrested for jaywalking could demand access to a Mexican diplomat.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 11 2005, 01:32 PM)
For those who can't (or won't) see the reasoning behind this, try to imagine what 51 new death penalty cases is going to cost the American taxpayer. The median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Appeals to death penalty cases account for 29% of that. link
The government will incur millions in additional expenses for this.
But that isn't why we're doing this.
Citizens of foreign countries could potentially be exempt from the death penalty if the ICJ.
From the original article:
Do we want an international body looking over the shoulder of our justice system? There is an increasing sense that that is exactly what the international community wants to do: impose its views on the US.
The government will incur millions in additional expenses for this.
But that isn't why we're doing this.
Citizens of foreign countries could potentially be exempt from the death penalty if the ICJ.
From the original article:
QUOTE
"The International Court of Justice has interpreted the Vienna Consular Convention in ways that we had not anticipated that involved state criminal prosecutions and the death penalty, effectively asking the court to supervise our domestic criminal system," State Department spokeswoman Darla Jordan said yesterday.
Withdrawal from the protocol is a way of "protecting against future International Court of Justice judgments that might similarly interpret the consular convention or disrupt our domestic criminal system in ways we did not anticipate when we joined the convention," Jordan added.
Withdrawal from the protocol is a way of "protecting against future International Court of Justice judgments that might similarly interpret the consular convention or disrupt our domestic criminal system in ways we did not anticipate when we joined the convention," Jordan added.
Do we want an international body looking over the shoulder of our justice system? There is an increasing sense that that is exactly what the international community wants to do: impose its views on the US.
First of all Amlord, the ICJ could not prevent us from exercising the death penalty based on what is written in the treaty. If you don't believe me then try actually reading the treaty (linked in my first post) rather than listening to the rantings of some woman from the state department who is saying exactly what she was told to say.
As to your last comment, that is exactly why we signed the treaty in the first place! We wanted to be able to look over the shoulders of the justice departments of foreign nations so we could protect our citizens - In fact we have done this in the past. Now that other nations are exercising their rights under the treaty you'd have us pull out of it?
The only ruling made by the ICJ was that the mexican nationals should be re-tried because they were not allowed access to their consular representatives during the trials. I don't care if that costs tax payers money, the government should have allowed them access to these representatives in the first place. In fact they were breaking the law by not doing so because the Constitution states that all treaties have the same force as federal law. Our government should treat foreign nationals with the same respect and courtesy we'd ask that other nations treat our citizens abroad with, period. This goes double when there is already a treaty in place requiring them to do so.
Now putting the shoe on the other foot, let's say you went down to Cancun and got a little rowdy and they threw you in jail. How would you feel if the Mexican government denied you consular access and simply proceeded with trial and locked you up? What if during this process they used unsavory tactics to get you to confess to things you weren't responsible for increasing your jail time?
QUOTE(Amlord)
Imagine if every Mexican citizen arrested for jaywalking could demand access to a Mexican diplomat.
Imagine getting arrested for jaywalking, I'm not even sure that is an offense you could be jailed for
There is no reason to make light of this situation, the treaty came about for a reason and we have decided that since we don't want to play by the rules that we have been holding others to then we are going to just pull out.
QUOTE(Amlord)
How many times is "neo-con" going to be mentioned here? Is there anything indicating this is a "neo-con" move? The neo-con movement is about national defense, not some diplomatic decision regarding court cases.
Just because it isn't stated on their homepage as an explicit principle doesn't mean they don't hold very much to a sentiment you summed up in your own words - "Do we want an international body looking over the shoulder of our justice system? There is an increasing sense that that is exactly what the international community wants to do: impose its views on the US."
This drive to be completely above and superior to any of our international peers is very much a neo-con principle amlord.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.