دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران

چکیده

در نظام معاصر حقوق بین‌الملل، رابطة حقوق داخلی و حقوق بین‌الملل همچنان بحثی مناقشه‌برانگیز می‌نماید و این مسئله در برخی نظام‌های داخلی مانند نظام حقوقی آمریکا، به‌عنوان نظامی فدرال، به چالش جدی حقوقی بدل می‌شود؛ چه، در عین ‌حال که قانون اساسی آمریکا برتری را به حقوق بین‌الملل می‌دهد، رفتار حقوقی و سیاسی ایالات و حتی دولت فدرال گاه خلاف این را نشان می‌دهد. از سوی ‌دیگر، آمریکا که در جامعة بین‌الملل حاضر خود را هژمون می‌شمرد، تلاش چندانی را، مگر به اقتضای منافع ملی، مصروف تبعیت از احکام صادره از نهادهای بین‌المللی و به‌ویژه دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری نمی‌کند. در تحلیل رفتار قوای سه‌گانه در آمریکا، قوة مقننه با تحمل فشار حداقلی انتقادها و همچنین قوة مجریه، اعم از ریاست جمهوری و سایر ارکان اجرایی، رفتاری دوگانه در قبال تعهدات بین‌المللی داشته‌اند. انتقادات بسیاری اما متوجه قوة قضاییة آمریکاست؛ تا بدان‌جا که در مواردی، دادگاه‌های ایالات با بی‌توجهی به احکام دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری و فراموش کردن تعهدات دولت فدرال، نوعی فدرالیسم نو را در انداخته‌اند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing the United States Practice before the International Court of Justice

نویسنده [English]

  • Rezvan Bagherzadeh

Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

چکیده [English]

In contemporary international legal system, the relationship between international and domestic law has still appeared to be a controversial issue and it seems to be even more challenging for federal governments e.g. the US. Paradoxically, the US Constitution recognizes international law as the higher law whereas federal and state authorities do not constantly comply with this prioritization. The US, seemingly a hegemon, in several cases has proved not to obey some international judicial decisions particularly the ICJ’s unless they are in harmony with its national interests. While analyzing tripartite branches of the US government, the legislature and executive apply double standards when dealing with the US international obligations, but state courts and even the Supreme Court, have repeatedly ignored the ICJ decisions and hence the US international commitments and initiated the so-called “New-Federalism”.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • the United States of America
  • separation of powers
  • International Court of Justice
  • Relationship between International and Domestic Law
  • New Federalism
  • Tripartite Branches of the US Government
  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها و تقریرات

  1. استون، فردیناد اف (1387)، نهادهای اساسی حقوق ایالات متحده آمریکا، ترجمة سید حسین صفایی، تهران: جنگل.
  2. الهویی‌نظری، حمید (1392)، حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، تهران: دادگستر.
  3. براونلی، یان (1396)، اصول حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، ویراست هشتم: جیمز کرافورد، ترجمۀ محمد حبیبی مجنده، قم: دانشگاه مفید.
  4. ضیائی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1396)، حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، تهران: گنج دانش.
  5. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1383)، حقوق بین‌الملل معاهدات، تهران: نشر نو.
  6. کک­دین، نگوین؛ دییه، پاتریک؛ پله، آلن (1382)، حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، ترجمۀ حسن حبیبی، ج 1، تهران: اطلاعات.
  7. ممتاز، جمشید (87-1386)، تقریرات درس حقوق سازمان‌های بین‌المللی، دانشگاه تهران، دانشکده‌ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، کارشناسی ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل، نیمسال اول تحصیلی.

 

ب) مقالات

  1. تسخیری، محمدصالح؛ موسی­زاده، رضا؛ علیزاده، مسعود (1397)، «مطالعۀ تطبیقی خاص‌گرایی‌هایی حقوقی در قبال حقوق بین‌الملل: معافیت‌گرایی آمریکایی در برابر کثرت‌گرایی اتحادیۀ اروپایی»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 48، ش 1، ص 179-159.
  2. حاجی‌زاده، محمود؛ نژندی­منش، هیبت­اله؛ زارعی، محمد حسین (1398)، «نقش دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در برقراری حاکمیت بین‌المللی قانون»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 49، ش 2، ص 448-431.
  3. رنجبریان، امیرحسین؛ صیرفی، ساسان (1394)، «ایران و برنامۀ آزادی دریانوردی امریکا»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 52، ص 158-121.
  4. زمانی، قاسم (1375)، «حقوق قراردادی و تدوین قواعد عرفی در رویة دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری با تأکید بر قضیۀ نیکاراگوئه»، مجلة حقوقی، ش 20، ص 333-285.
  5. سهرابلو، علی؛ طجرلو، رضا؛ ساعدی، بهمن (1398)، «اثرپذیری حقوق داخلی از قواعد و هنجارهای حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 49، ش 2، 470-449.
  6. سیفی، سید جمال (1382)، «تأملی بر دعاوی ایران در دیوان دادگستری بین‌المللی»، مجلۀ پژوهش‌های حقوقی، دورۀ 2، ش 3، 46-31.
  7. سیفی، سید جمال (1382)، «رای دیوان دادگستری بین المللی در قضیۀ سکوهای نفتی: دیپلماسی قضایی در دادرسی بین‌المللی»، مجلۀ پژوهش‌های حقوقی، دورۀ 2، ش 4، ص 76-43.
  8. ضیائی بیگدلی، محمدرضا؛ باقرزاده، حسن (1399)، «مرجعیت نظری دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 50، ش 1، ص 78-57.
  9. فروغی، فضل‌الله؛ عباسی، مراد (1398). «نقض مصونیت قضایی دولت‌ها و اموالشان (مطالعۀ موردی مصادرۀ دارایی جمهوری اسلامی ایران توسط ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا)»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوقی، دورۀ یازدهم، ش 1، ص 205- 165.
  10. قطبی، میلاد؛ حبیب‌زاده، توکل (1394)، «تحلیل جایگاه نهادهای اجرایی فراقوه‌ای مصوب مجلس در نظام جمهوری اسلامی ایران و چارچوب اصل استقلال قوا»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 45، ش 3، ص 360-341.
  11. کدخدایی، عباسعلی؛ داعی، علی (1389)، «سلب مصونیت دولت ایران در محاکم آمریکا»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، سال بیست‌وهفتم، ش 43، ص 38-13.
  12. محبی، محسن؛ بذار، وحید (1399)، «ارزیابی ایرادهای آمریکا در مورد دستور موقت در قضیۀ نقض‌های ادعایی عهدنامۀ مودت»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 50، ش 1، ص 274-255.
  13. محبی، محسن (1377)، «بیانیه‌های الجزایر: یک دریچه، چند نگاه»، مجلۀ حقوقی، ش 23، ص 34-5.

 

  1. انگلیسی
  2. A) Books & Notes
  3. Alhooii Nazari, H. (2013), Public International Law, Tehran: Publication Dadgostar (In Persian).
  4. Brooks, Rosa. (2017), How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
  5. Brownlie, Ian (2017), Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed. by James Crawford, Tehran: Mofid University Publications (In Persian).
  6. Carmichael, Cade (2018), The United States, UNCLOS, and the "Race to the Arctic"; The Persistent Resistance of the United States to the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention and its Potential Effects on the Future of the Arctic, Haskoli Islands (University of Iceland), Final Thesis for LL.M. in Natural Resources Law and International Environmental Law, May.
  7. Evans, Malcolm D. (2014), International Law, Oxford University Press.
  8. Falsafi, H. (2004), International Law of Treaties, Tehran: Farhang Nashr-e-Nou Publications (In Persian).
  9. Garner, Bryan A. & editor in chief (2009), Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed., West Publishing Co.
  10. Henkin, Louis (1996), Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution, Oxford University Press.
  11. Momtaz, Djamshid (2008), Notes on the Law of International Organizations, University of Tehran, Faculty of Law & Political Sciences, Master of Public International Law, the 1st Semester (In Persian).
  12. Quoc Dinh, N.; Daillier, P.; Pellet, A. (2003), Droit International Law, Translated by H. Habibi, Vol. 1, Tehran: Etelaat Publications (In Persian).
  13. Romano, Cesare P. R. (ed.) (2009), The Sword and the Scales; The United States and International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press.
  14. Stone, Ferdinand F. (2008), Fundamental Institutions in the Law of the United States of America, Translated by H. Safai, Tehran: Jungle Publications (In Persian).
  15. Ziai Bigdeli, M. R. (2017), Public International Law, Tehran: Ganjedanesh Publications (In Persian).

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. “The Charming Betsy Canon, Separation of Powers, and Customary International Law” (2008), Harvard Law Review, Vol. 121, No. 4, pp.1215–1236.
  3. Abi-Mershed, Elizabeth A. H. (2009), “The United States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, in: Cesare P. R. Romano (ed.), The Sword and the Scales; The United States and International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, pp.185-209.
  4. Born, Gary (2012), “A New Generation of International Adjudication”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 61, No. 4, Jan., pp.775-879.
  5. Briggs, Herbert W. (1959), “The United States and the International Court of Justice: A Re-Examination”, AJIL, Vol. 53, No. 2, Apr., pp.301-318.
  6. Bromund, T. R., Carafano, J. J; Schaefer, B. D. (2018), “7 Reasons U.S. Should Not Ratify UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”, Commentary Global Politics, Jun 4th; at: https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/7-reasons-us-should-not-ratify-un-convention-the-law-the-sea
  7. Chow, Daniel C.K. (2018), “United States Unilateralism and the World Trade Organization”, The Ohio State University: Moritz College of Law, Legal Studies Working Paper Series, No. 449, pp.1-25.
  8. Enabulele, Amos O. & Eric Okojie (2016), “Myths and Realities in ‘Self-Executing Treaties’”, Mizan Law Review, Vol. 10, No.1, Sept., pp.1-37.
  9. Forughi, Fazlollah & Abbasi, Morad (2019), “Violation of judicial and executive immunity of Governments and their property (Case Study: Confiscation of assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United States of America), Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 11, Issue 01, pp.165-205 (In Persian).
  10. Galbraith, Jean (ed.) (2019), “Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law”, AJIL, Vol. 113:1, pp.131-141.
  11. Gallagher, Marjorie Ellen (2014), “The Time is Now: The United States Needs to Accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to Exert Influence over the Competing Claims in the South China Sea”, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1-26.
  12. Gantz, David A. (2009), “The United States and Dispute Settlement under the North American Free Trade Agreement: Ambivalence, Frustration, and Occasional Defiance”, in: Cesare P. R. Romano (ed.), The Sword and the Scales; The United States and International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, pp.356-394.
  13. Ghotbi, Milad & Habibzadeh, Tavakol (2015), “Analysis of the role of executive bodies beyond the parliament-approved powers in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the principle of independence of powers”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 03, pp.341-360 (In Persian).
  14. Gray, Christine (2003), “The Use and Abuse of the International Court of Justice: Cases concerning the Use of Force after Nicaragua”, EJIL 14, pp.867–905.
  15. Hajizadeh, M.; Najandimanesh, H.; Zarei, M. H. (2019), “The Role of International Court of Justice in Establishment of International Rule of Law”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, Issue 02, pp.431-448 (In Persian).
  16. Hoppe, Carsten (2007), “Implementation of LaGrand and Avena in Germany and the United States: Exploring a Transatlantic Divide in Search of a Uniform Interpretation of Consular Rights”, EJIL, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.317-336.
  17. Kadkhodaei, Abbas-Ali & Daiee, Ali (2011), “Divestment of Iran's Immunity in the U.S. Courts”, International Law Review (ILR), Vol. 27, Issue 43, pp.13-38 (In Persian).
  18. Karamanian, Susan L. (2009), “Dispute Settlement under NAFTA Chapter 11: A Response to the Critics in the United States”, in: Cesare P. R. Romano (ed.), The Sword and the Scales; The United States and International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, pp. 395-418.
  19. Kelly, J. Patrick (1987), “The International Court of Justice: Crisis and Reformation”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, pp.342-374.
  20. Le Mon, Christopher J. (2005), "Post-Avena Application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by United States Courts", Leiden Journal of International Law, No. I8, pp.215-235.
  21. Masters, Jonathan (2017), “U.S. Foreign Policy Powers: Congress and the President”, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), CFR Backgrounders Series, March 2, 1-6; at: http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/publications/publication.html/133310d7-13f9-4a84-b2ca-1e2d36234819
  22. McClellan, James (2016), “Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government (2000)”, Last modified April 13; at: http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/rule-of-law-us-constitutionalism
  23. Melish, Tara J. (2009), “From Paradox to Subsidiarity: The United States and Human Rights Treaty Bodies”, in: Cesare P. R. Romano (ed.), The Sword and the Scales; The United States and International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, pp.210-296.
  24. Mohebi, Mohsen & Bazzar, Vahid (2020), “Assessing US Objections to the Interim Order in the Alleged Violations of the Treaty of Amity”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 50, Issue 01, pp.255-274. (in persain)
  25. Mohebi, Mohsen (1998), “The Algeria declaration: A view at a glance”, International Law Review (ILR), Vol. 16, Issue 23, 5-42. (in persain)
  26. Moore, David H. (2009), “Law(Makers) of the Land: The Doctrine of Treaty Non-Self-Execution”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, pp.32, 32-47.
  27. Morello, Carol (2018), “U.S. terminates 1955 treaty with Iran, calling it an ‘absolute absurdity’; at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-terminates-1955-treaty-with-iran-calling-it-an-absolute-absurdity/2018/10/03/839b39a6-3bcf-42b1-a2d5-04bfe1c5f660_story.html
  28. Morina, Visar; Korenica, F.; Doli, D. (2011), “The relationship between international law and national law in the case of Kosovo: A constitutional perspective”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp.274–296.
  29. Müller, Amrei (2013), “Relationship between national and international law”, Public International Law, University of Oslo, 14 Oct., pp.1-28.
  30. Murphy, S. (2009), “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies”, in: C. Romano (ed.), The Sword and the Scales: The United States and International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, pp.46-111.
  31. Paulus, Andreas L. (2004), “From Neglect to Defiance? The United States and International Adjudication”, EJIL, Vol. 15, Issue 4, pp.783–812.
  32. Preuss, Lawrence (1946), “The International Court of Justice, the Senate, and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction”, AJIL, Vol. 40, No. 4, Oct., pp.720-736.
  33. Quigley, John (2009), “The United States’ Withdrawal from International Court of Justice Jurisdiction in Consular Cases: Reasons and Consequences”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol. 19, pp. 263-305.
  34. Rabkin, Jeremy (2006), “The Law of the Sea Treaty: A Bad Deal for America” (Issue Analysis), Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Advancing Liberty from the Economy to Ecology, No. 3, pp.1-13.
  35. Ranjbarian, Amirhossein & Seyrafi, Sassan (2015), “Iran and the United States Freedom of Navigation Program”, International Law Review (ILR), Vol. 32, Issue 52, pp.121-158 (In Persian).
  36. Sadat, Leila N. & Mark A. Drumbl (2016), “The United States and the International Criminal Court: A Complicated, Uneasy, Yet at Times Engaging Relationship”, Washington University in St. Louis, School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, pp.1-26.
  37. Seifi, Seyed Jamal (2003), “Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Oil Platforms Case: Judicial Diplomacy in International Justice”, Journal of Legal Research, Vol. 02, Issue 04, pp.43-76 (In Persian).
  38. Seifi, Seyed Jamal (2003), “Reflections on the Iranian Claims in the International Court of Justice”, Journal of Legal Research, Vol. 02, Issue 03, pp.31-46 (In Persian).
  39. Sohrablu, Ali; Tajarlou, R.; Saedi, B. (2019), “Domestic Law and the Commitment to Obey the Rules and Norms of International Law”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, Issue 02, pp.449-470 (In Persian).
  40. Starke, J. G. (1936), “Monism and Dualism in the Theory of International Law”, 17 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 66, pp.66-81.
  41. Taskhiri, M. S.; Mousazadeh, R.; Alizadeh, M. (2018), “Comparative Study of Legal Particularism vis-à-vis International Law: American Exemptionalism vs. European Union Pluralism”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, Issue 01, pp.159-179 (In Persian).
  42. Van Genugten, Willem (2008), “Avena as a Challenge to the Federal American Legal System”, Hague Justice Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2008, pp.51-57.
  43. Vazquaz, Carlos Manuel (1998), “Breard and the Federal Power to Require Compliance with ICJ Orders of Provisional Measures”, AJIL, No. 92, pp.683-691.
  44. Verdier, Pierre-Hugues & Mila Versteeg (2014), “International Law in Domestic Legal Systems: An Empirical Perspective”, Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, Vol. 108, pp.376-381.
  45. Zamani, Seyyed Ghasem (1995), “Contractual rights and the development of customary rules of procedure of International Court of Justice with an emphasis on Nicaragua Case”, International Law Review (ILR), Vol. 14, Issue 20, pp.285-334 (In Persian).
  46. Ziai Bigdeli, M. R. & Bagherzadeh, H. (2020), “Theoretical Authority of the International Court of Justice”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 50, Issue 01, pp.57-78 (In Persian).

 

  1. C) Cases (Arranged by date)

C-1) PCIJ & ICJ

  1. PCIJ Reports (1927), The Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (France v. Turkey).
  2. ICJ Reports (1952), Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America).

61.ICJ Reports (1954), Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

  1. ICJ Reports (1956), Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953 (United States of America v. Czech.) (Order of Mar. 14).
  2. ICJ Reports (1958), Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (United States of America v. U.S.S.R.) (Order of Dec. 9).
  3. ICJ Reports (1980), United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran), Pleadings and Judgment.
  4. ICJ Reports (1984), Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States of America).
  5. ICJ Reports (1986), Military and paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment).
  6. ICJ Reports (1988), Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 (Advisory Opinion).
  7. ICJ Reports (1989), Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy).
  8. ICJ Reports (1996), Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), (Settlement Agreement Arrangement Amiable).
  9. ICJ Reports (1996), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), (Written Statement of the Government of the United States of America) (Letter dated 20 June 1995 from the Acting Legal Adviser to the Department of State, together with Written Statement of the Government of the United States of America) (20 June 1995).
  10. ICJ Reports (1998), Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America) (Order of 9 April 1998).
  11. ICJ Reports (1999), Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America), (Order of 02 June 1999).
  12. ICJ Reports (2001), LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) (Counter Memorial of the United States of America & Judgment).
  13. ICJ Reports (2002), Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium).
  14. ICJ Reports (2003), Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America).
  15. ICJ Reports (2004), Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America).
  16. ICJ Reports (2004), Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion), (Written Statement by the United States of America (30 Jan. 2004)).
  17. ICJ Reports (2009), Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America).
  18. ICJ Reports (since 2016), Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (pending); , at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/164
  19. ICJ Reports (since 2018), Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (pending); at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/175

C-2) PCA

  1. PCA Reports (1902), The Pious Fund of the Californias (The United States of America v. The United Mexican States, Oct. 14.
  2. PCA Reports (1922), Norwegian Shipowners’ Claims (Norway v. The United States of America), Oct. 13.
  3. PCA Reports (2012), Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America (Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America), Sept. 29.

 

C-3) US Courts

  1. Committee of US Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan (1988), 859 F.2d 929, 73 U.S.App.D.C. 266, No. 87-5053, United States Court of Appeals,
    District of Columbia Circuit., Oct. 14; at: https://openjurist.org/859/f2d/929/committee-of-united-states-citizens-living-in-nicaragua-v-reagan
  2. US v. Polestine Liberation Organization et al. (1988), 695 F. Supp. 1456; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18608, June 29; at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/695/1456/2346009/
  3.  Breard v. Greene (1998), 523 U.S. 371, 140 L. Ed. 2d 529, 1998 , Apr. 14; at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/523/371/
  4. Standt v. The City of New York (2001), 153 F. Supp. 2d 417, No. 99 Civ. 11008 (RWS), United States District Court, S.D. New York, July 19; at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14227446417690535630&q=Standt+v.+City+of+New+York&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1
  5. Atkins v. Virginia (2002), 536 U.S. 304, Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia No. 00-8452, June 20; at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/
  6. Awrence v. Texas (2003), 539 U.S. 558, Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, June 25; at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/

 

  1. D) Instruments
  2. H.Res.568-108th Congress (2003-2004), 2nd session, In the House of Representatives, March 17, 2004; at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-resolution/568/text
  3. Memorandum ‘Compliance with the Decision of the International Court of Justice in Avena’ (2005), February 28; at: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050228-18.html

 

  1. E) Websites
  2. http://www.cila.ir
  3. https://www.icj-cij.org
  4. https://www.washingtonpost.com