International Court of Justice Confused

This article started me off confused. And I had to look at a couple of others to figure this out. I was trying to figure out how the ICJ could have a finding related to the Vienna Conventions related to 51 death row inmates in Texas who came from Mexico. First I thought it was the Geneva Conventions, but after some caffination, that cleared up.

The article finally points out that that the reason why the US is withdrawing from this specific accord is the ICJ is being used to review state/local level decisions. The inmates are in for local domestic crimes that are obviously pretty bad and were found guilty. How the ICJ suddenly decided it had the right to overview this, I'm uncertain, though it looks like there is some related pressure due to the international dislike of the US use of capital punishment.

Since there isn't any oversite, looks like they are doing just what we thought they would, random law making with no appeal.

Of course, you can look at this OpEd by the Houston Chronicle if you want to see an unreasoned piece of logic on the topic. Lots of name calling and faulty statements of judgment, but no facts at all. Get this:

By opting out, the United States invites other nations — many with far fewer homegrown procedural protections than generally offered in this country — to skirt or flout the consular treaty. A number of nations have signed the treaty without agreeing to the international court protocol, but key allies and trading partners, including Germany and Japan, have.

Umm. We opted out of the ICJ overview and use as arbitrater, not the convention itself. The ICJ portion is an "optional" protocol in that convention. We aren't denying them the ability to use consular assistance or contact.

Guess I'll look at this some more. Seems like a lot of stink being thrown around about this, and the only reason I see that is because it's Bushitler who made the decision.

UPDATE: This Voice of America article makes it clear what the issue is. The Mexican inmates have used the convention to circumvent the US law process. Their trials and convictions were under the state of Texas' jurisdiction, and instead of using the state appeals and federal appeals process, they jumped directly to the ICJ. That's why the present administration is withdrawing.

I do think the state of Texas screwed up by failing to provide consular notification in these cases though. There must be a way for the states to abide by international treaties which the US is a part. That failure is just sloppy.

The view that this is a "sore loser" move is a crock. The use of the protocol to circumvent a countries process of law is utter rubbish.