North America

On March 25, 2008, the United States Supreme Court announced its judgment in Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc.,[1] a case involving the exclusivity of the grounds for vacating arbitral awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As explained below, the decision holds that the disputing parties may not agree to expand the grounds for vacatur beyond those listed in 9 U.S.C. § 10.

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.

In its previous session, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Permanent Mission of India to the United States v.

On May 15, 2007, President George W. Bush "urge[d] the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress."[1] In doing so, the President identified four benefits to U.S. interests when the U.S. joins the Convention.

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.

In time for Earth Day, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the well-publicized case, Massachusetts v.

Recently, David Hicks, an Australian interned for over five years in Guantanamo Bay, became the first individual sentenced under the newly-constituted Military Commission process. Hicks pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally providing material support to al-Qaeda in the context of an armed conflict against the U.S.[1] and will be repatriated to Australia to serve a further nine months of imprisonment.

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.

Background

In Hamdan v.