Where International Law Ain't Law 
By Mumia Abu-Jamal  
April 20, 1998 
  
     The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the  
     right of every individual to claim the protection of the  
     laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first  
     duties of government is to afford that protection. 
     -- Marbury vs. Madison (1803) (quoting Lord Blackstone's  
     Commentaries)  
  
     When US President WJ Clinton was trying to assemble  international support for a Blitzkrieg bombing run on Baghdad, he  claimed the onetime US ally was an "outlaw state" that flaunted  "international law."  
  
     The Iowa State fiasco, where US diplomats ran into a brick wall of public resistance to their largely incoherent Iraqi policy, began with similar saber-rattling about "violations of international law." If politicians and defense industry paid pundits were to be believed, the very allegation of nation being violative of "international Law" sets it apart as an "outlaw state," and therefore a nation to be punished by the "international community."  
  
     That may be the case for Iraq, or some other formerly Third World, now emergent, nation. But what of a superpower, a First World nation; like - the USA?  
  
     Recently a Paraguayan citizen, Angel Breard, held on an American death row, became a test case as to whether a superpower was bound by "international law."  
  
     When arrested, Mr. Breard was not informed of his right under an international treaty to see a consular official from his home country. Had this occurred, it is probable that he would've been spared a death sentence.  
  
     Paraguay filed an appeal with the International Court of Justice, which called on the US Government to "take all measures at its disposal" to halt Mr. Breard's execution, until a full hearing could be had on Paraguay's application to the ICJ. Breard's lawyers filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court, one opposed by the US Justice Dept., citing the treaty violation. Under US statutory law on jurisdiction (or the authority of a court to hear a case) any federal court may entertain applications for relief "on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or Treaties of the United States" (Judiciary Code 82254).  
  
     In English, this means any court is free to grant relief, and, indeed, must do so, if the Constitution, or a Treaty, is violated.  
  
     Obviously, however, being a denizen of death row excludes one form the status of "person", for, with the exception of the International Court of Justice, no court heard his claim of a clear Treaty violation, and the state of Virginia executed Mr. Breard.  
  
     The ICJ ruling, unprecedented in the history of International Law, was all but ignored by these sworn to uphold all laws in the US.  
  
     Just a month before, the UN Human Rights Commission assailed the American practice of Capital Punishment as a system with "a sufficient degree of unfairness and arbitrariness." Rightwing Senator, and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Jesse Helms (R-NC) dismissed the 65 page report issued by the Commission as "an absurd UN charade."  
  
     The report, written by Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, a Senegalese lawyer and expert in international law, was based on meetings with state and federal officials from across the country, as well as his visits to several death rows.  
  
     What is "absurd", its seems, is to actually expect a global empire, no matter what Treaties it signs, to actually abide by International Law.