*. Acting Professor of Law, University of California, Davis; B.S., 1979, University of Illinois; M.A., 1981, University of California, Los Angeles; J.D., 1986, Northwestern University.

**. B.A., 1990, Arizona State University; L.L.M., 1997, University of Edinburgh; J.D. Candidate, 2000, University of California, Davis, School of Law.

***. B.A., 1995, University of Michigan; J.D. Candidate, 2000, University of California, Davis, School of Law.

1. See, e.g., United States v. Rose, 731 F.2d 1337, 1345 (8th Cir.) (confession to private bounty hunter admissible even though no Miranda warnings administered), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 931 (1984); accord Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163-67 (1986) (confession may not be held involuntary in violation of Due Process Clause unless provoked by governmental coercion).

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 7, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 16, at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1967), reprinted in 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976). [hereinafter "ICCPR"] The ICCPR and other human rights treaties are widely published; one website where they may be found is <http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ainstls1.htm> (visited Jan. 5, 2000).

3. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, art. 36, April 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77 [hereinafter "Vienna Convention"].

4. See Diane Marie Amann, A Whipsaw Cuts Both Ways: The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in an International Context, 45 UCLA L. REV. 1201, 1245-51 (1998) (describing growing importance of the individual in international law).

5. U.S. CONST., art. VI.

6. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 113, reprinted in 23 I.L.M. 1027 (1984) and 24 I.L.M. 535 (1985) (entered into force June 26, 1987) [hereinafter "Torture Convention"].

7. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Mar. 7, 1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, reprinted in 5 I.L.M. 352 (1966) (entered into force Jan. 4, 1969).

8. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900). For how courts decide whether a principle has become part of customary international law, see, e.g., RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 102(2), 103(2) (1986) [hereinafter "RESTATEMENT"]; Cynthia R.L. Fairweather, Obstacles to Enforcing International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts, 4 U.C. DAVIS J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 119, 124-27 (1998). For a list of norms considered to be customary international law, see RESTATEMENT, supra, § 702.

9. See, e.g., Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253 (1829); Sei Fujii v. California, 38 Cal. 2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952); RESTATEMENT, supra note 8, § 111(4) & cmt. h.

10. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider, on the ground that counsel had not raised the issue, whether the ICCPR required extension of the privilege against self-incrimination to foreign prosecutions. United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666, 695 n.16 (1998). Had the issue been raised, the fact that the United States has declared that the key provisions of the ICCPR "are not self-executing" surely would impair direct enforceability. See U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 138 CONG. REC. S4781-01, § III(1) (daily ed. Apr. 2, 1992) [hereinafter "U.S. ICCPR RUDs"].

11. U.S. ICCPR RUDs, supra note 10, § I(2).

12. See William A. Schabas, Invalid Reservations to the ICCPR: Is the United States Still a Party?, 21 BROOK. J. INT’L L. 277 (1995).

13. Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. [hereinafter "MDLEA"].

14. See, e.g., United States v. Rojas, 801 F. Supp. 644, 651 (S.D. Fla. 1992), aff’d, 53 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 976 (1995). In so doing, courts followed an MDLEA provision that bars international-law challenges to the statute. See 46 U.S.C. § 1903(d), discussed in, e.g., United States v. Mena, 863 F.2d 1522, 1530-31 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 (1989).

15. Balsys, 524 U.S., at 695-96. For an analysis of this decision, see Diane Marie Amann, International Decisions: United States v. Balsys 92 AM. J. INT’L L. 759 (1998).

16. For fuller discussion of this indirect use of international norms, see, e.g., Mark A.Sherman, Indirect Incorporation of Human Rights Treaty Provisions in Criminal Cases in United States Courts, 3 ILSA J. INT’L & COMP. L. 719 (1997); Hans A. Linde, Comments, 18 INT’L LAW. 77 (1984); Gordon A. Christenson, The Uses of Human Rights Norms to Inform Constitutional Interpretation, 4 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 39 (1981).

17. U.S. CONST., amend. IV.

18. See id., amends. V, VIII, XIV.

19. 384 U.S. 436, 486-88 (1966); see also New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 672-73 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (supporting consultation of other countries’ interrogation practices to determine U.S. standards).

20. See, e.g., Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 796-97 n. 22 (1982); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 596 n.10 (1977); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 102 & n.35 (1958).

21. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 830-31 & n.31 (1988).

22. Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989); see Thompson, 487 U.S. at 869 n.4 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Cf. Stanford, 492 U.S. at 389-90, 405 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (arguing that international principles forbade execution of 17 year olds).

23. The four who have indicated such willingness are Justices Stevens and Breyer and, to a lesser extent, O’Connor and Kennedy. See Amann, supra note 4, at 1259-60 n.356. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas reject such analysis. See id.

24. See United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 170 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 1999).

25. See United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 188 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

26. The most notorious case denying relief was Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998) (per curiam), in which the Court refused to stay the execution of a Paraguayan national who had been denied access to consular assistance, because he had failed to raise the argument in state proceedings. It reached this result even though the International Court of Justice, to which Paraguay had petitioned on the defendant’s behalf, had issued an order for provisional measures seeking a stay of execution. See Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. U.S.A.), I.C.J. (Order on Request for the Indication of Provisional Measure, Apr. 9, 1998). See also United States v. Rodriguez, 68 F.Supp.2d 178, 182-3 (E.D.N.Y.) (collecting cases in which relief was denied.)

27. Vienna Convention, supra, note 3, art. 36(1)(b).

28. See John C. Sims & Linda E. Carter, Representing Foreign Nationals: Emerging Importance of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations as a Defense Tool, CHAMPION 28, 29 (Sept./Oct. 1998).

29. See John Quigley, Human Rights Defenses in US Courts, 20 HUM. RTS. Q. 555, 591 (1998). For assistance in drafting arguments, see the model brief bank at Rights International website, (visited Jan. 31, 1999) <http://www.rightsinternational.org>. See also FED. R. CRIM. P. 26.1 (describing how to introduce evidence of foreign law). back to text

30. See Sims & Carter, supra note 28, at 30.

31. See id. at 57 (stating that, although issue is not clear, courts are likely to require showing of prejudice).

32. ICCPR, supra note 2, art. 7.

33. See U.S. ICCPR RUDs, supra note 10, §§ I(3), III(1).

34. See Amann, supra note 4, at 1289 (discussing precedents establishing "court’s fundamental duty not to foster injustice within its courtroom").

35. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a first-time embezzler of $15,000 who accepts responsibility may be eligible for probation, while a first-time embezzler of $50,000 who refuses to admit the amount of the theft is likely to get some type of custodial sentence. See USSG §§ 2B1.1, 3E1.1, 5C1.1. Of course, the amount of restitution your client will have to pay also will depend on the court’s resolution of this dispute.

36. See, e.g., Jacques Semmelman, Federal Courts, the Constitution, and the Rule of Non-Inquiry in International Extradition Proceedings, 76 CORNELL L. REV. 1198 (1991) (discussing with favor doctrine first set out in Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109 (1901)); but see, e.g., John B. Quigley, The Rule of Non-Inquiry and the Impact of Human Rights in Extradition Law, 15 N.C. J. INT’L L. & COM. REG. 401 (1990) (criticizing rule).

37. Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 439 (1989) [read summary] (interpreting Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953)).

38. Torture Convention, supra note 6, art. 3. The ban against torture has been termed a jus cogens norm; that is, the highest type of customary international law, a norm that all nations are bound to obey. See Siderman de Blake v. Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 714-18 (9th Cir. 1992) (also holding, however, that lawsuit for violation of this norm barred by federal sovereign immunity statute). Even so, because the U.S. has declared Article 3 of the Torture Convention not to be self-executing, it is unlikely that a U.S. court would enforce the article directly. See U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, § III(1), CONG. REC. S17486-01 (daily ed., Oct. 27, 1990).

39. Some U.S. courts have, in fact, stated that there might be a "humanitarian exception" in "situations where the relator, upon extradition, would be subject to procedures or punishment ... antipathetic to a federal court’s sense of decency." Mainero v. Gregg, 164 F.3d 1199, 1210(9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 364 U.S. 851 (1960)); see United States v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103, 112 (1st Cir. 1997). No court, however, has found such a situation and thus enforced the exception. See Mainero, 164 F.3d, at 1210.

40. See, e.g., Pratt v. Attorney General of Jamaica, [1994] 2 App.Cas. 1 (P.C. 1993) (en banc) (concluding that extended time on death row could violate Jamaican Constitution’s ban on inhuman punishment); Catholic Commission for Justice & Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney General, [1993] 2 Z.L.R. 279 (Zimb. 1993); 119 (4) SALR 239 (Sup. Ct.); 14 H.R.L.J. 323 (similar holding based on Constitution of Zimbabwe); but see Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 SCR 779 (Can. 1991) (finding no violation of Canada’s constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment). See generally William A. Schabas, International Law and Abolition of the Death Penalty: Recent Developments, 4 ILSA J. INT’L L. 535, 572 n.122 (1998) (collecting opinions); John Dugard &Christine van Den Wyngaert, Reconciling Extradition with Human Rights, 92 AM. J. INT’L L. 187, 199 (1998) (discussing cases interpreting Soering).

41. Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995).

42. Id. at 1046 (Stevens, J., joined by Breyer, J., mem. respecting denial of cert.). In Chambers v. Bowersox, 157 F.3d 560, 568 (8th Cir. 1998), the court held a claim based on this issue to be procedurally barred. Nonetheless, it considered the foreign precedents and remarked that, because the long stay was due to exhaustion of judicial remedies, it likely was constitutional. Id. at 568-70.

43. Illustrative are the different treatments of juvenile offenders in Germany and in Virginia, as described in Soering, supra note 33, 44-45, 73. Indeed, the defendant’s age -- 18 -- was one reason that the European Court of Human Rights blocked extradition. See id. 111.

44. ICCPR, supra note 2, art.10(2)(b).

45. Id., art. 10(3).

46. U.S. ICCPR RUDs, supra note 10, §§ I(5).

47. U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 10 GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.6/C.1/L.1, 1955.

48. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04 & n.8 (1976).

49. See Detainees of Brooklyn House of Detention for Men v. Malcolm, 420 F.2d 392, 396 (2d Cir. 1975).

50. United States v. Noriega, 808 F. Supp. 791, 798 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (holding detainee entitled to full benefits of Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, T.I.A.S. No. 3364, 75 U.N.T.S. 135).