Treaty Dialogue in Sanchez-Llamas: Is Chief Justice Roberts a Transnationalist, After All?

Authors

• Melissa A. Waters, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawFollow

Document Type

Article

Language

English (en)

Publication Date

2007

Publication Title

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Abstract

Chief Justice John Roberts is generally considered to be a “nationalist” with respect to transnational judicial dialogue: for example, he has expressed skepticism as to the value of foreign authority in constitutional interpretation. In his majority opinion in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, however, Roberts eagerly engages in treaty dialogue, by considering foreign and international sources in interpreting U.S. treaty obligations. This Essay examines Roberts’ use of both “direct” and “indirect” treaty dialogue in interpreting the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. By engaging in dialogue with both treaty partners and the International Court of Justice, Roberts allows foreign precedent and practice to influence the Court’s interpretation of the treaty provisions while at the same time using dialogue to “educate” the ICJ on the American adversarial system.

Keywords

Treaties, International Law, Transnational Judicial Dialogue, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon

Publication Citation

Melissa A. Waters, Treaty Dialogue in Sanchez-Llamas: Is Chief Justice Roberts a Transnationalist, After All?, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 89 (2007)

Repository Citation

Waters, Melissa A., "Treaty Dialogue in Sanchez-Llamas: Is Chief Justice Roberts a Transnationalist, After All?" (2007). Scholarship@WashULaw. 969.
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_scholarship/969