Medellín’s New Paradigm for Treaty Interpretation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9555500 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David J Bederman (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 102 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 529-540 |
| Publication date | 2008-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0002-9300 • E-ISSN: 2161-7953 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/20456641 |
| OpenAlex | W2077104913 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 6 |
Much of the scholarly attention given to the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2008 decision in Medellín v. Texas has focused on the Court’s supposed ruling as to the presumptive nonself-execution of international agreements entered into by the United States, and the power of the president to implement such agreements without an act of Congress. Less heed has been paid to the impact and implications of the Court’s reasoning and analysis in interpreting the four international agreements at issue in the case: the 1945 United Nations Charter and Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and its Optional Protocol. Although the Court’s analysis of the self-execution questions is beyond the scope of my contribution to this Agora, I acknowledge that the jurisprudence of treaty interpretation fits uncomfortably with the calculus of an international agreement’s selfexecution into U.S. law. And while it may seem obscure to view the Medellín decision through the lens of treaty interpretation, that is what truly brings its importance into focus, so that its impact may ultimately be seen as clarifying the established norms of U.S. foreign relations law, particularly in the selection of appropriate sources for treaty construction and the deference to be granted to various foreign relations actors and institutions
Deference · International court · International law · Interpretation (philosophy · Jurisprudence · Political science · Public international law · Sociology · Statute · Supreme court · Treaty · Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties · Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies · International Law and Aviation · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |