Introduction
Legal confusion has clouded the recent de facto change of government in Honduras. Some of this arises from the passionate political debate over President Manuel Zelaya and his de facto removal. Without entering that debate, this analysis addresses only questions of international law and related questions of law.
Introduction
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides that foreign states shall be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts unless the suit falls within a specified statutory exception to immunity. There is currently a conflict among the federal circuit courts over whether suits against individual foreign officials are covered by the FSIA. If such suits are not covered by the FSIA, additional questions are raised concerning a possible common law immunity for foreign officials. This Insight describes both the conflict and the additional questions.
Background
On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled against the U.S. government in cases brought by foreign nationals challenging their detention at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military facility.[1] A five-justice majority in Boumediene v. Bush held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA)[2] violated the U.S.
On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Medellin v. Texas,[1] a case in which a Mexican national on death row in Texas challenged his conviction on the basis that he was not afforded his right of consular notification under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the 2004 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Mexico v.
Introduction
In its previous session, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Permanent Mission of India to the United States v.
As a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), the United States has an obligation to ensure that a detained national of another party to the treaty is informed of the right to contact his or her consulate and request consular assistance.[1] The notification requirement of Article 36 of the VCCR has been at the center of a series of U.S.
On March 5, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its opinion in Sinochem International Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation,[1] one of only a few Supreme Court decisions to deal squarely with the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court held that federal district courts need not establish jurisdiction prior to dismissing transnational litigation on the basis of forum non conveniens.
On February 26, 2007, the International Court of Justice issued its judgment in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).[1] The case marked the first time that a country sued another country for breaches of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("the Convention").
