Lesson plan
Avena case
The Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), more commonly the Avena case ( ), was a case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In its judgment of 31 March 2004, the Court found that the United States had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in not allowing legal representation from the Mexican consulate to meet with Mexican citizens arrested and imprisoned for crimes in the United States. An order indicating provisional measures in the case of Mr. José Ernesto Medellín Rojas was entered on 16 July 2008, and on 19 January 2009, the ICJ found that the United States breached its obligations under the 16 July order, but also that the Statute of the International Court of Justice "does not allow it to consider possible violations of the Judgment which it is called upon to interpret." In the subsequent domestic American litigation in Medellín v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court (the court of last resort concerning federal rights and international obligations) held that the Congress had not implemented laws to enable redress of violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, or to enable enforcement of decisions of the International Court of Justice, and hence the President of the United States could not do so.
Article summary
The Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), more commonly the Avena case ( ), was a case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In its judgment of 31 March 2004, the Court found that the United States had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in not allowing legal representation from the Mexican consulate to meet with Mexican citizens arrested and imprisoned for crimes in the United States. An order indicating provisional measures in the case of Mr. José Ernesto Medellín Rojas was entered on 16 July 2008, and on 19 January 2009, the ICJ found that the United States breached its obligations under the 16 July order, but also that the Statute of the International Court of Justice "does not allow it to consider possible violations of the Judgment which it is called upon to interpret." In the subsequent domestic American litigation in Medellín v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court (the court of last resort concerning federal rights and international obligations) held that the Congress had not implemented laws to enable redress of violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, or to enable enforcement of decisions of the International Court of Justice, and hence the President of the United States could not do so.
Key claims
No claims recorded.
Discussion questions
- Summarise the article in your own words. Which single claim would you verify first, and why?
- Which claim in this article is most likely to be revised as the sources update? How would you check its current status?
- If two sources disagreed about one of these facts, what would you need in order to trust one over the other?
Bibliography
No sources recorded.
Key claims and bibliography are generated from the same tracked claims and sources as the article page.