Researching the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Notification Requirements

By Cindy G. Buys

Cindy G. Buys is a Professor and Director of International Law Programs at Southern Illinois University School of Law. She holds an LL.M. from Georgetown University Law Center, a Juris Doctorate and a Master of Arts in International Relations from Syracuse University, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the State University of New York at Albany.

Published January/February 2023

(Previously updated by Barbara H. Bean in June/July 2007; and by Cindy G. Buys in October 2015 and in July/August 2018)

See the Archive Version!


Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), to which 182 States are party (including the United States), requires a State arresting or detaining a foreign national to afford the detainee access to his or her consulate and to notify the foreign national of the right of consular access. In several U.S. cases involving foreign nationals, defendants have asserted that the arresting or detaining authorities have failed to make the necessary notifications. Many of these cases have involved the death penalty. A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions has underscored the difficulty of this issue, especially for a federalist State like the United States. The federal government negotiates and accepts treaties obligations on behalf of the United States, while arrests and prosecutions often are made at the state or local level. Although the principle of U.S. compliance with the treaty obligations is accepted, compliance has been inconsistent, and there has been no meaningful penalty for non-compliance with consular notice obligations.

Between 1998 and 2004, Paraguay, Germany, and Mexico brought challenges against the United States at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the United States’ failure to ensure consular notification rights. In the most recent case of Avena involving 52 Mexicans who had been convicted of capital crimes in the United States, the ICJ ruled against the United States and requested it to review and reconsider the convictions and sentences of the foreign defendants, all of whom had not received their consular notification rights. Following the ICJ ruling, then U.S. President Bush attempted to implement the ICJ decision, but was prevented from doing so by the U.S. Supreme Court which held the President did not have the unilateral authority to implement an ICJ judgment in a case named Medellín v. Texas, after one of the defendants. At the same time, the Bush Administration withdrew from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations thereby depriving the ICJ of jurisdiction over the United States in future cases involving the VCCR.

As of this 2022 update, there remain several outstanding legal issues relating to consular notification rights in the United States. While the VCCR Article 36 requires that both consular notification and access be given “without delay”, different legal authorities have reached different conclusions as to the meaning of that phrase. In addition, U.S. legal authorities have split regarding whether consular notification rights are individually enforceable in U.S. courts and the U.S. Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on whether Article 36 is a self-executing treaty provision. Additionally, there is no agreed upon remedy for a violation of consular notification rights.

This guide describes sources required to research the issue of compliance with the VCCR consular notification obligations with a focus on the United States, whether the need is of a practical or scholarly nature. Some foreign and international sources are also included for reference and comparison.

Treaty Sources


Subscription Databases

Ratification Information

United States Department of State Office of Treaty Affairs – Treaties in Force (2020)

Preparatory Works/Legislative History

United Nations

United States

U.S. State Department Resources

President’s Memorandum Directing Compliance with ICJ Decisions

  • President Bush’s Memorandum for Attorney General on February 28, 2005.

U.S. Withdrawal from Optional Protocol/ICJ Jurisdiction

Selected Cases from the United States

The most important United States Supreme Court case to date regarding consular notification as required by VCCR Article 36 is Medellín v. Texas. See 552 U.S. 491 (2008). Jose Ernesto Medellín was a Mexican national who the ICJ (in Case Concerning Avena and 51 Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12) determined was entitled to U.S. state court review of his murder conviction and death penalty sentence. On February 28, 2005, President George W. Bush issued a Memorandum establishing that state courts within the United States must follow and give effect to Avena. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Medellín’s second habeas corpus petition, which he filed after President Bush’s Memorandum. The Court determined that the Avena judgment did not establish self-executing and binding domestic law applicable to the states in the absence of federal legislation, which did not exist (and still does not to this day). Only through such Congressional action could Avena become the supreme law of the land, trumping state limitations on habeas petitions. The Court further held that the states were not beholden to President Bush’s Memorandum, since the President had no power stemming from the Constitution or from Congress to bind the states in such a way. Medellín was thereby denied habeas corpus and executed in 2008.

Additional United States Supreme Court Cases and Resources

  • Sanchez-Llamas v. Or., 548 U.S. 331 (2006) (Suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for a violation of Article 36; states may apply rules of procedural default to VCCR claims).
  • Fed. Republic of Ger. v. U.S., 526 U.S. 111 (1999) (ICJ: LaGrand) (Germany’s ability to assert a claim against the state of Arizona to prevent the execution of a German citizen was without support from the VCCR).
  • Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998) (ICJ: Paraguay v. United States) (Failure to raise a VCCR claim at state court will bar federal habeas review).
  • U.S. Supreme Court – opinions, oral arguments, briefs.
  • Federal Courts – Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts – Pacer – electronic access to U.S. District, Bankruptcy, and Appellate court records (subscription database).

U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals Cases

  • United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
    • United States v. Ademaj, 170 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1999) (Failure to notify Albanian national of his right to assistance from Albanian Consul was not a “plain error” where defendant did not allege any material due process right infringed nor indicate how the Albian Consul could have aided his defense).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
    • Mora v. N.Y., 524 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2008) (The failure of law enforcement to inform detained aliens of right to consular notification under Article 36 cannot be vindicated by private action for damages).
    • U.S. v. De La Pava, 268 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2001) (Government’s failure to comply with the consular notification provision of the VCCR was not grounds for dismissal of indictment).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
    • NOTE: All cases from this circuit listed below are unreported. Currently, there are no reported cases from the Third Circuit concerning VCCR Article 36. Thus, the following Third Circuit cases may be used as persuasive authority only.
    • U.S. v. Castillo, 742 F. App’x 610 (3d Cir. 2018) (Even when it is assumed that VCCR Article 36 gives a foreign national an individually enforceable right, dismissal of indictment is not warranted and failure to provide consular notification is not de facto prejudicial).
    • McPherson v. U.S., 392 F. App’x 938 (3d Cir. 2010) (Even assuming that law enforcement actively misled Jamaican foreign national regarding his right to consular notification, this did not justify equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1350).
    • Robinson v. Warden, 250 F. App’x 462 (3d Cir. 2007) (Arguable right of a foreign national to consular notification under VCCR Article 36 does not apply to a charge of violation of prison rules).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
    • Murphy v. Netherland, 116 F.3d 97 (4th Cir. 1997) (Mexican national’s failure to raise VCCR Article 36 violation in state court was procedural bar to his VCCR claim in federal court; said Mexican national’s failure to indicate contact with Mexican consulate would have changed his guilty plea or sentence resulted in failure to establish prejudice from alleged VCCR Article 36 violation; even assuming VCCR Article 36 created an individual right for said Mexican national, no constitutional right existed).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
    • Cardenas v. Stephens, 820 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2016) (VCCR does not give rise to judicially enforceable individual rights cognizable on federal habeas review under AEDPA).
    • Cardenas v. Dretke, 405 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2005) (Since Mexican national was read his Miranda rights, advised of his right to legal representation prior to confession, voluntarily waived said right, was eventually provided with legal representation upon his request, and Mexican consulate knew of his detention in enough time to aid but chose not to do so, said Mexican national failed to establish that he was prejudiced by Texas’ failure to inform him of his right to consular assistance).
    • U.S. v. Jimenez-Nava, 243 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2001) (Violation of VCCR does not warrant exclusion of incriminating statements to immigration agents made by defendant).
    • Faulder v. Johnson, 81 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 1996) (Failure of Texas officials to inform prisoner of rights under VCCR did not merit reversal of the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief from prisoner’s death sentence).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
    • U.S. v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2001) (VCCR does not create rights that are privately enforceable in federal court).
    • United States v. Page, 232 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2000) (Even if a private right is created under VCCR Article 36, said right is not a constitutional right that may be protected by judicially created remedies).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
    • Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018) (Article 36 of the VCCR requires “competent authorities” to notify detained foreign nationals of their right to consular notification; booking officers fall within “competent authorities” language and have a duty to inform foreign-national arrestee of said right; who else should be considered a competent authority is unclear).
    • Mordi v. Zeigler, 770 F.3d 1161 (7th Cir. 2014) (No clearly established rule requiring arresting/interviewing officers to inform a foreign-national arrestee of his rights under Article 36 of the VCCR currently exists; however, the court leaves the door open that said duty may exist for booking officers).
    • Sandoval v. U.S., 574 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2009) (The rules of procedural default apply to the VCCR; defendant failed to prove that he was prejudiced by not being in contact with the Mexican consulate and that assistance from the consulate would have helped in his case).
    • Sobitan v. Glud, 589 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2009) (Claims under the VCCR do not fall within the Westfall Act exceptions for violations of a “statutes of the United States;” thus, proper defendant is U.S. government).
    • Osageide v. U.S., 543 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2008) (In order for a defendant to bring an ineffective legal assistance claim arising from counsel’s failure to inform him of his VCCR Article 36 rights, a defendant must provide sufficient evidence to prove he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to inform him of his Article 36 rights).
    • Jogi v. Voges, 480 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2007) (Jogi II) (Violation of VCCR art. 36 creates right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); vacating Jogi v. Voges, 425 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2005) (Jogi I) (Article 36 of the VCCR grants private rights to aliens from countries which are parties to the Convention and are in the United States).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
    • U.S. v. Santos, 235 F.3d 1105 (8th Cir. 2000) (Government’s four-day delay in informing defendant of his VCCR Article 36 rights did not require reversal of conviction because of overwhelming evidence against defendant).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    • Cornejo v. Cnty. of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2007) (Article 36 is intended to facilitate the exercise of consular functions, it is not intended to confer individual rights).
    • U.S. v. Villa-Fabela, 882 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1989) (Immigration and Naturalization Service’s breach of its duty to inform foreign national of his rights under Article 36 in deportation proceeding was not prejudicial under the circumstances; said failure did not prevent the use of prior deportation to support foreign national’s reentry conviction), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Proa-Tovar, 975 F.2d 592 (9th Cir. 1992).
    • U.S. v. Rangel-Gonzalez, 617 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1980) (Appellant met his burden of proof with respect to demonstrating prejudice due to lack of consular notification).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
    • United States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2000) (Even if it is presumed that VCCR Article 36 creates an individually enforceable right of consular notification, suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy, and Laotian foreign national failed to show that denial of such a right caused him prejudice; thereby, said foreign national could not show reversible error).
  • United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
    • Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2008) (Article 36 of the VCCR does not confer individual rights that can be judicially enforced in domestic courts).
  • United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
    • Earle v. D.C., 707 F.3d 299 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Assuming that VCCR Article 36’s notice obligation is ongoing, said obligation ceased at the time when Jamaican foreign national escaped from custody, and did not toll applicable statute of limitations period).
  • State court website – online resources vary by state, e.g., Texas
  • Also, on subscription databases such as Westlaw and Lexis

Notable U.S. State Court Cases

  • Gutierrez v. State, CR94-1795B (Nev. Second Judicial District Court, County of Washoe, Aug. 21, 2017) (Nevada district court analogized the case at hand to Torres v. State (below) and held that failure to notify the Mexican Consulate of the arrest of Mexican national (Gutierrez) constituted prejudice, which overcomes procedural default; had Mexican consul been timely notified, mitigating evidence would have been presented at Gutierrez’s sentencing; death sentence vacated), affirmed by State v. Gutierrez, 477 P.3d 342 (Nev. 2020).
  • Torres v. State, 2005 OK CR 17, 120 P.3d 1184 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (A presumption of prejudice exists when a foreign national’s VCCR Article 36 rights have been violated and foreign national lacked knowledge of the right, would have taken advantage of the right had he known, and if it is probable that respective consulate would provide assistance).

U.S. Federal Regulations on Consular Notification in Federal Arrests

U.S. State Statutes That Address Consular Notification in Case of Arrest or Detention of a Foreign National

International Materials

International Court of Justice

(List of All Cases)

  • Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan), Provisional Measures, Order of 18 May 2017, I.C.J. Reports 2017, p. 231 (Pakistan’s failure to notify Indian consulate of the arrest of Indian foreign national until some three weeks had passed was a breach of the VCCR Article 36 obligation to inform the consulate “without delay”; though Pakistan’s actions were violations of Article 36, paragraph 1, (a), (b), and (c), this did not warrant reversal of the Indian foreign national’s conviction, but only reconsideration in light of the violation of his rights) (This case resulted in Pakistan’s adoption of a statute in 2020 that permits convicted foreigners to raise VCCR Article 36 violations in petitions with the High Court; said provision overrides anything contrary in any other law).
  • Case Concerning Avena and 51 Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Mar. 31) (United States violated its obligations under the VCCR by failing to inform 51 Mexican nationals of their right to consular notification and failing to contact the Mexican consulate “without delay” after arrests; ICJ stated that the proper reparation for said violations is review and reconsideration by United States courts of each case where a violation occurred).
  • LaGrand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 466 (Jun. 27) (VCCR Article 36 creates an individual right in detained foreign nationals of member states to be notified “without delay” of their rights under the convention; United States violated said individual right both by its failure to contact German consulate of two German foreign nationals’ arrest and its refusal to allow a challenge of the conviction due to “procedural default”).
  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Para. v. U.S.), 1998 I.C.J. 248 (Apr. 9) (First allegation of a violation of VCCR Article 36 to be brought before the ICJ; the ICJ ordered the indication of provisional measures requiring the United States to stay the execution of the Paraguayan foreign national concerned until the ICJ issued a decision on the matter; within the same year, Paraguay informed the ICJ that it wished to discontinue the proceedings with prejudice and the United States concurred).

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

Selected Cases from Foreign Nations

  • Australia – Supreme Court of Western Australia: R. v. Tan [2001] WASC 275 (5 October 2001) (If notification of rights under VCCR Article 36 is not provided prior to interrogation of a foreign national, suppression of evidence may be warranted).
  • Brazil – Supreme Federal Court of Brazil: Ext. n. 1126, Request of extradition, Federal Republic of Germany, Rapporteur Justice Joaquim Barbosa, opinion of Justice Celso de Mello, published on 12/11/2009 (Foreigners arrested in Brazil have the indispensable right to be notified of the option to contact their consulate for assistance under VCCR Article 36).
  • Canada – Federal Court of Canada: Khadr v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs), 2004 FC 1145, at paras. 26, 27 (VCCR Article 36 creates individual rights for arrested foreigners).
  • Germany – Federal Constitutional Court of Germany: Case Nos. 2 BvR 2115/01, 2 BvR 2132/01, 2 BvR 348/03 (Order of 19 September 2006) (Foreigners who have been arrested must be informed, without delay, about their right to have the consular office of their country notified of their arrest; courts are obliged to treat Article 36 of the VCCR in the same way as a domestic statute regarding criminal procedure).
  • Malawi
    • Republic v. Lameck Bandawe Phiri (No. 25), High Court of Malawi (June 23, 2017) (Foreign national’s death sentence vacated because of a finding of prejudice resulting from a violation of his VCCR Article 36 rights).
    • Republic v. Mabvuto Alumeta (No. 26), High Court of Malawi (June 23, 2017) (Foreign national’s death sentence vacated and immediate release from custody ordered because of finding of prejudice resulting from a violation of his VCCR Article 36 rights).
    • Both cases are discussed in the African Human Rights Yearbook in the context of an analysis of the African Court on Human and People’s Rights decision in Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (listed above in Section 10.4).
  • Mexic0 – Supreme Court of Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Amparo Directo en Revisión 517/2011, Primera Sala, Min. Olga Sánchez Cordero De García Villegas. Sentencia de 23 de enero de 2013, México (Finding that the rights contained in VCCR Article 36 are crucial aspects to an adequate defense largely due to the disadvantages that foreign nationals face in legal proceedings such as the language barrier and unfamiliarity with the legal system) (English translation not available).
  • South Africa – Constitutional Court of South Africa: S v. Okah [2018] ZACC 3 (Court compared consular notification requirement in Article 7(3) of the Terrorist Bombings Convention to that in VCCR Article 36; the fact that a foreign national does not know of or utilize the assistance of his consular representative is not prejudicial when the consular representative is conspicuously present and readily accessible in court; prejudice is required for such a rights violation).
  • NOTE – This list is not comprehensive of all international materials concerning Article 36 of the VCCR.

Further International Research

  • To locate cases, laws and secondary sources involving the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in non-U.S. jurisdictions, use databases of foreign cases and legislation, using the title of the treaty in the language of the country searched, e.g., Convention de Vienne sur les Relations Consulaires, Convencion de Viena sobre Relaciones Consulares. (Foreign titles can be found by looking in the United Nations Treaty Series).
  • A collection of foreign statutes, constitutional requirements, and court decisions implementing Article 36 rights and remedies, see Individual Consular Rights: Foreign Law and Practice (last updated in September 2020).

Secondary Sources

Selected Research Guides

American Law Reports / Encyclopedia Entries

  • George L. Blum, Annotation, What Constitutes “Custodial Interrogation” Within Rule of Miranda v. Arizona Requiring that Suspect Be Informed of His or Her Federal Constitutional Rights Before Custodial Interrogation – At Border or Functional Equivalent of Border, 68 A.L.R.6th 607 (2011).
  • Barron M. Helgoe, Esq., The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, W. Va. Law., September/October 2008, at 54.
  • Beverly L. Jacklin, Annotation, Service of Process by Mail in International Civil Action as Permissible Under Hague Convention, 112 A.L.R. Fed. 241 (1993).
  • Ann K. Wooster, Annotation, Construction and Application of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), Requiring that Foreign Consulate be Notified When One of its Nationals is Arrested, 175 A.L.R. Fed. 243 (2002).

American Society of International Law (ASIL) Insights (Subscription Only)

  • World Court Consular Notification and Death Penalty Challenge Revisited: Mexico v. United States, vol. 8, issue 1 (2003) – by Pieter H.F. Bekker.
  • Consular Notification and the Death Penalty: The World Court’s Provisional Measures in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), vol. 8, issue 10 (2003) – by Pieter H.F. Bekker.
  • Consular Notification and the Death Penalty: The ICJ’s Judgment in Avena, vol. 8, issue 6 (2004) – by William Aceves.
  • President Bush’s Determination Regarding Mexican Nationals and Consular Convention Rights, vol. 9, issue 9 (2005) – by Frederic L. Kirgis.
  • The Supreme Court Backs Away from a Consular Convention Case, vol. 9, issue 17 (2005) – by Frederic L. Kirgis.
  • The Supreme Court Decides a Consular Convention Case, vol. 10, issue 16 (2006) – by Frederic L. Kirgis.
  • The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Decides Medellin’s Consular Convention Case, 10 ASIL Insights (Nov. 8, 2006) – by Frederic L. Kirgis.
  • The Seventh Circuit Again Finds Jurisdiction for Private Remedies for Violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, vol. 11, issue 14 (2007) – by Chimène I. Keitner and Kenneth C. Randall.
  • Medellin v. Texas: Supreme Court Holds ICJ Decisions under the Consular Convention Not Binding Federal Law, Rejects Presidential Enforcement of ICJ Judgments over State Proceedings, vol. 12, issue 6 (2008) – by Margaret E. McGuinness.


  • John Quigley, Foreigners on America’s Death Rows (2018).
  • John Quigley et al., The Law of Consular Access: A Documentary Guide (1st ed. 2011).
  • John Quigley and Luke T. Lee, Consular Law and Practice (3d ed. 2008).
  • Luke T. Lee, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, with Texts and Commentaries on Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, United States-Soviet Consular Convention, 1964 [and] Draft European Convention on Consular Functions (1966).
  • Anne James & Joanne Cecil comps., Equal Protection: Consular Assistance and Criminal Justice Procedures in the USA: An Introductory Guide for Consulates (2d ed. 2005).

Selected Law Review Articles

  • William J. Aceves, International Decisions: Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States) Provisional Measures Order, 97 Am. J. Int’l L. 923 (2003).
  • William J. Aceves, International Decisions: LaGrand (Germany v. United States), 96 Am. J. Int’l L. 210 (2002).
  • William J. Aceves, International Decisions: Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Federal Republic of Germany v. United States), 93 Am. J. Int’l L. 924 (1999).
  • William J. Aceves, International Decisions: Application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States), 92 Am. J. Int’l L. 517 (1998).
  • William J. Aceves, The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: A Study of Rights, Wrongs, and Remedies, 31 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 257 (1998).
  • Louis Antonacci, Lessons from LaGrand: An Argument for the Domestic Enforceability of Treaty-Based Rights Under International Prisoner Transfer Treaties, 3 Santa Clara J. Int’l L. 22 (2005).
  • Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, The Abiding Relevance of Federalism to U.S. Foreign Relations, 92 Am. J. Int’l L. 675 (1998).
  • Roger P. Alford, Federal Courts, International Tribunals, and the Continuum of Deference, 43 Va. J. Int’l L. 675 (2003).
  • Sandra Babcock, The Limits of International Law: Efforts to Enforce Rulings of The International Court of Justice in U.S. Death Penalty Cases, 62 Syracuse L. Rev. 183 (2012).
  • Paul Schiff Berman, Federalism and International Law Through the Lens of Legal Pluralism, 73 Mo. L. Rev. 1151 (2008).
  • Andrea Bianchi, International Law and U.S. Courts: The Myth of Lohengrin Revisited, 15 Eur. J. Int’l L. 751 (2004).
  • Anthony N. Bishop, The Unenforceable Rights to Consular Notification and Access in the United States: What’s Changed Since the LaGrand Case?, 25 Hous. J. Int’l L. 1 (2002).
  • Curtis A. Bradley, Breard, Our Dualist Constitution, and the Internationalist Conception, 51 Stan. L. Rev. 529 (1999).
  • Ronald A. Brand, Treaties and the Separation of Powers in the United States: A Reassessment after Medellín V. Texas, 47 Duq. L. Rev. 707 (2009).
  • Emily S. Bremer, The Dynamic Last-In-Time Rule, 22 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev 27 (2012).
  • Joshua A. Brook, Federalism and Foreign Affairs: How to Remedy Violations of the Vienna Convention and Obey the U.S. Constitution, Too, 37 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 573 (2004).
  • Cindy Galway Buys, Reflections on the 50th Anniversary of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 38 S. Ill. U. L.J. 57 (2013).
  • Cindy Galway Buys, Scott D. Pollock & Ioana Navarette Pellicer, Do Unto Others: The Importance of Better Compliance with Consular Notification Rights, 21 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 461 (2011).
  • Cindy Galway Buys, The United States Supreme Court Misses the Mark: Towards Better Implementation of the United States International Obligations, 24 Conn. J. Int’l L. 39 (2008).
  • Linda E. Carter, Lessons from Avena: The Inadequacy of Clemency and Judicial Proceedings for Violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 15 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 259 (2005).
  • Linda E. Carter, Compliance with ICJ Provisional Measures and the Meaning of Review and Reconsideration Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex v. U.S.), 25 Mich. J. Int’l L. 117 (2003).
  • Linda E. Carter and John Cary Sims, The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the Rights of Non-Citizen Criminal Defendants: The Lessons of Breard, 9 Cal. Def. 47 (1999).
  • Christina M. Cerna, The Right to Consular Notification as a Human Right, 31 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 419 (2008).
  • Sanja Djajic, The Effect of International Court of Justice Decisions on Municipal Courts in the United States: Breard v. Greene, 23 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 27 (1999).
  • Valerie Epps, Violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Time for Remedies, 11 Willamette J. Int’l L. & Disp. Resol. 1 (2004).
  • Joan Fitzpatrick, The Unreality of International Law in the United States and the LaGrand Case, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 427 (2002).
  • Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz, Article 36, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations-Treaty Interpretation and Enforcement-International Court of Justice-Fair Trial- Suppression of Evidence, 101 Am. J. Int’l L. 627 (2007).
  • Sandy Ghandhi, Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment of 31 March 2004, 54 ICLQ 779 (2005).
  • Alex Glashausser, Difference and Deference in Treaty Interpretation, 50 Vill. L. Rev. 25 (2005).
  • Alberto Gonzales and Amy Moore, No Right at All: Putting Consular Notification in its Rightful Place after Medellin, 66 Fl. L. Rev. 685 (2015).
  • Malvina Halberstam, Lagrand and Avena Establish a Right, but Is There a Remedy? Brief Comments on the Legal Effect of Lagrand and Avena in the U.S., 11 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 415 (2005).
  • Malvina Halberstam, The Constitutional Authority of the Federal Government in State Criminal Proceedings That involve U.S. Treaty Obligations or Affect U.S. Foreign Relations, 10 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (1999).
  • Oona A. Hathaway, Sabria McElroy & Sara Aronchick Solow, International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts, 37 Yale J. Int’l L. 51 (2012).
  • Carsten Hoppe, Implementation of LaGrand and Avena in Germany and the United States: Exploring a Transatlantic Divide in Search of a Uniform Interpretation of Consular Rights, 18 Eur. J. Int’l L. 317 (2007).
  • Roberto Iraola, Federal Criminal Prosecutions and the Right to Consular Notification under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, 105 W. Va. L. Rev. 179, 184 (2002).
  • Mark J. Kadish, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: The International Court of Justice in Mexico v. United States (Avena), 36 Geo. J. Int’l L. 1 (2004).
  • Mark J. Kadish, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: A Search for the Right to Consul, 18 Mich. J. Int’l L. 565 (1997).
  • Mark J. Kadish & Charles C. Olson, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon and Article 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: The Supreme Court, the Right to Consul, and Remediation, 27 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1185 (2006).
  • Sital Kalantry, The Intent-To-Benefit: Individually Enforceable Rights under International Treaties, 44 Stan. J. Int’l L. 63 (2008).
  • Julian G. Ku, Structural Conflicts in the Interpretation of Customary International Law, 45 Santa Clara L. Rev. 857 (2005).
  • Julian G. Ku, The State of New York Does Exist: How the States Control Compliance with International Law, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 457 (2004).
  • Gregory J. Kuykendall, Alicia Amezcua-Rodriguez & Mark Warren, Mitigation Abroad: Preparing A Successful Case for Life for the Foreign National Client, 36 Hofstra L. Rev 989 (2008).
  • Thomas H. Lee, Making Sense of the Eleventh Amendment: International Law and State Sovereignty, 96 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1027 (2002).
  • Janet Koven Levit, Does Medellín Matter?, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 617 (2008).
  • Janet Koven Levit, Sanchez-Llamas V. Oregon: The Glass Is Half Full, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 29 (2007).
  • Janet Koven Levit, Medellín V. Dretke: Another Chapter in the Vienna Convention Narrative, 41 Tulsa L. Rev. 193 (2005).
  • Janet Koven Levit, A Tale of International Law in the Heartland: Torres and the Role of State Courts in Transnational Legal Conversation, 12 Tul. J. Comp. & Int’l L. 163 (2004-2005).
  • Erik J. Luna & Douglas J. Sylvester, Beyond Breard, 17 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 147, (1999).
  • Scott W. Lyons, Breach Without Remedy in The International Forum and The Need For Self-Help: The Conundrum Resulting From The Medellín Case, 13 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 73 (2009).
  • Linda A. Malone, From Breard to Atkins to Malvo: Legal Incompetency and Human Rights Norms on the Fringes of the Death Penalty, 13 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 363 (2004).
  • Asa Markel, The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: After the Federal Courts’ Abdication, Will State Courts Fill in the Breach?, 7 Chi.-Kent J. Int’l Comp. L. 1 (2007).
  • Jenny S. Martinez, Enforcing the Decisions of International Tribunals in the U.S. Legal System, 45 Santa Clara L. Rev. 877 (2005).
  • Margaret E. McGuinness, Sanchez-Llamas, American Human Rights Exceptionalism and The VCCR Norm Portal, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 47 (2007).
  • Martin Mennecke & Christian J. Tams, LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), 51 ICLQ 449 (2002).
  • John F. Murphy, Medellín V. Texas: Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision for the United States and The Rule of Law In International Affairs, 31 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 247 (2008).
  • Sean D. Murphy, Implementation of Avena Decision by Oklahoma Court, 98 Am. J. Int’l L. 581 (2004).
  • Sean D. Murphy, U.S. Position before International Court of Justice in Mexican Death Penalty Case, 97 Am. J. Int’l L. 434 (2003).
  • M. Todd Parker, “Review and Reconsideration:” In Search of a Just Standard of Review for Violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 12 U.C. Davis J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 225 (2006).
  • John T. Parry, Sanchez-Llamas in Context, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1 (2007).
  • Jordan J. Paust, Breard and Treaty-Based Rights under the Consular Convention, 92 Am. J. Int’l L. 691 (1998).
  • John B. Quigley, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: In Retrospect And Into The Future, 38 S. Ill. U. L.J. 1 (2013).
  • John Quigley, The United States’ Withdrawal from International Court of Justice Jurisdiction in Consular Cases: Reasons and Consequences, 19 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 263 (2009).
  • John Quigley, “If You Are not a United States Citizen . . .”: International Requirements in the Arrest of Foreigners, 6 Ohio St. J. Crim L. 661 (2009).
  • John Quigley, Must Treaty Violations Be Remedied?: A Critique of Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 36 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 355 (2008).
  • John Quigley, Toward More Effective Judicial Implementation of Treaty-Based Rights, 29 Fordham Int’l L. J. 552 (2006).
  • John Quigley, Application of Consular Rights to Foreign Nationals: Standard for Reversal of a Criminal Conviction, 11 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 403 (2005).
  • John Quigley, Suppressing the Incriminating Statements of Foreigners, 13 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 339 (2004).
  • John Quigley, The Law of State Responsibility and the Right to Consular Access, 11 Willamette J. Int’l L. & Disp. Resol. 39 (2004).
  • John Quigley, International Attention to the Death Penalty: Texas as a Lightning Rod, 8 Tex. J. on C.L. & C.R. 175 (2003).
  • John Quigley, LaGrand: A Challenge to the U.S. Judiciary, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 435 (2002).
  • Henry J. Richardson III, The Execution of Angel Breard by the United States: Violating an Order of the International Court of Justice, 12 Temp. Int’l & Comp. L.J. 121 (1998).
  • Laurence E. Rothenberg, International Law, U.S. Sovereignty, and the Death Penalty, 35 Geo. J. Int’l L. 547 (2004).
  • William A. Schabas, The ICJ Ruling against the United States: Is It Really about the Death Penalty? 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 445 (2002).
  • Howard S. Schiffman, The LaGrand Decision: The Evolving Legal Landscape of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in the U.S. Death Penalty Cases, 42 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1099 (2002).
  • Howard S. Schiffman, Breard and Beyond: The Status of Consular Notification and Access under the Vienna Convention, 8 Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L. 27 (2000).
  • S. Adele Shank & John Quigley, Foreigners on Texas’s Death Row and the Right of Access to a Consul, 26 St. Mary’s L.J. 719 (1995).
  • Dinah Shelton, Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex v. U.S.), 98 Am. J. Int’l L. 559 (2004).
  • Peter Shepherd, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: An Oregon Law Enforcement Perspective, 11 Willamette J. Int’l L. & Disp. Res. 53 (2004).
  • Bruno Simma and Carsten Hoppe, From LaGrand and Avena to Medellin – A Rocky Road toward Implementation, 14 Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 7 (2005).
  • John Cary Sims & Linda E. Carter, Emerging Importance of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations as a Defense Tool, 22-Sept/Oct Champion 28 (Sept/Oct 1998).
  • Robert G. Spector, The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: The Most Neglected Provision of International Family Law, 22 Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 643 (2013).
  • David P. Stewart, Weston Tribute – The Consular Notification Conundrum, 21 Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 685 (2013).
  • Steven G. Stransky, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon: A Missed Opportunity in Treaty Interpretation, 20 St. Thomas L. Rev. 25 (2007).
  • Christian J. Tams, Recognizing Guarantees and Assurances of Non-repetition: LaGrand and the Law of State Responsibility, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 441 (2002).
  • William E. Thro, American Exceptionalism: Some Thoughts on Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 219 (2007).
  • Victor M. Uribe, Consuls at Work: Universal Instruments of Human Rights and Consular Protection in the Context of Criminal Justice, 19 Hous. J. Int’l L. 375 (1997).
  • Reynaldo Anaya Valencia, Craig L. Jackson, Leticia Van de Putte & Rodney Ellis, Avena and the World Court’s Death Penalty Jurisdiction in Texas: Addressing the Odd Notion of Texas’s Independence from the World, 23 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 455 (2005).
  • Kweku Vanderpuve & Robert W. Bigelow, The Vienna Convention and the Defense of Noncitizens in New York: A Matter of Form and Substance, 18 Pace Int’l L. Rev. 99 (2006).
  • Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Breard, Printz, and the Treaty Power, 70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1317 (1999).
  • Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Night and Day: Coeur d’Alene, Breard, and the Unraveling of the Prospective-Retrospective Distinction in Eleventh Amendment Doctrine, 87 Geo. L.J. 1 (1998).
  • Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Breard and the Federal Power to Require Compliance with ICJ Orders of Provisional Measures, 92 Am. J. Int’l L. 683 (1998).
  • Carlos Manuel Vazquez, Treaty-Based Rights and Remedies of Individuals, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 1082 (1992).
  • Mark Warren, Rendered Meaningless? Security Detentions and The Erosion of Consular Access Rights, 38 S. Ill. U. L.J. 27 (2013).
  • Melissa A. Waters, Treaty Dialogue In Sanchez-Llamas: Is Chief Justice Roberts A Transnationalist, After All?, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 89 (2007).
  • Mark Weisburd, International Courts, and American Courts, 21 Mich. J. Int’l L. 877 (2000).
  • Mark Weisburd, International Judicial Decisions, Domestic Courts, and the Foreign Affairs Power, 2005 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 287 (2004-2005).
  • Richard J. Wilson, International Law Issues in Death Penalty Defense, 31 Hofstra L. Rev. 1195 (2003).
  • Anthony S. Winer, An Escape Route from the Medellín Maze, 25 Conn. J. Int’l L. 331 (2010).
  • Mark E. Wojcik, Consular Notification for Dual Nationals, 38 S. Ill. U. L.J. 73 (2013).
  • Rebecca E. Woodman, International Miranda? Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 70 J. Kan. B. Ass’n 41 (2001).