Kasus lockerbie

1.

Pada 21 Desember 1988, Pesawat Boeing 747

100 terdaftar N739PA yaitu penerbangan harianPan American World Airways milik Amerika,
meledak di udara pada saat terbang di atasLockerbie, Skotlandia, Inggris.2.

Pesawat tersebut terbang dari Bandar Udara Internasional Heathrow, London, ke Bandar
UdaraInternasional, J.F. Kennedy di New York, Amerika Serikat dan meledak ketika sebuah
340-450gram peledak plastik diledakkan di tempat kargo depan.3.

Akibat dari ledakan itu, 271 orang dari 21 negara yang berbeda meninggal dunia.
Dandiantaranya terdapat 189 orang penumpang berkewarganegaraan Amerika Serikat.4.

Melalui investigasi selama 3 tahun yang dilakukan oleh pihak Amerika Serikat, Inggris,
kemudianbergabung juga Perancis, ditemukan fakta bahwa yang bertanggung jawab atas
musibahtersebut adalah 2 (dua) orang intelijen Libya yakni
Abdelbase Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi
dan
Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah
. Dan keduanya adalah warga negara Libya.5.

Libya menolak untuk menyerahkan kedua orang warga negaranya tersebut kepadapemerintahan
Amerika Serikat dan Inggris, karena tidak adanya perjanjian ekstradisi yangdisepakati
sebelumnya.6.

Pada tanggal 18 Januari 1992, Libya memohon untuk diadakan pembahasan berdasarkan
Article14 (1)
Montreal Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation

melalui arbitrase.7.

Pada 21 Januari 1992, PBB melalui resolusinya 731(1992) yang mendesak Libya untuk
memehuhipermintaan para negara-negara tersebut untuk menyerahkan kedua orang pelaku
pembomantersebut.8.

Pada tanggal 3 Maret 1992, Penduduk Sosialis Libyan Arab Jamajiriyah mengajukan sengketa
ini
ke ICJ. Sebagai bentuk protesnya atas
Penafsiran atau tuntutan terhadap Konvensi Montreal

Provisional Measures
dan perlindungan terhadap negaranya. Konvensi ini juga mengaturtentang keselamatan
penerbangan sipil.9.

Pada 31 Maret 1992, DK PBB kembali mengeluarkan resolusi (Resolusi 748(1992))

yangmenetapkan sanksi kepada Libya karena tidak mematuhi resolusi yang telah
dikeluarkansebelumnya.
 LaGrand Case
Para Pihak : Germany v. United State of America
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)

I. KASUS POSISI
Pada tanggal 7 Januari 1982, Karl LaGrand dan Walter LaGrand, dua orang warga
negara Jerman yang telah tinggal di Amerika Serikat sejak berusia 3 tahun, melakukan
sebuah perampokan bersenjata yang menewaskan 1 orang warga Negara Amerika dan
melukai 1 orang lainnya. Berdasarkan putusan yang dibuat oleh Lembaga Peradilan
Amerika Serikat, LaGrand bersaudara dijatuhi hukuman mati dengan dakwaan tindakan
terorisme.
LaGrand bersaudara tidak diinformasikan sehubungan dengan adanya hak
pendampingan konsuler berdasarkan Vienna Convention of Consular Relation (VCCR) 1963,
dan pemerintah Amerika Serikat pun tidak memberitahukan Kantor Konsuler Pemerintah
Jerman di wilayahnya (Marana, Arizona) akan tertangkapnya dan diadilinya 2 orang warga
Negara Jerman. LaGrand bersaudara pun mengajukan permohonan asistensi konsuler agar
mendapatkan keringanan putusan. Namun pemerintah Amerika Serikat tidak menggubris
permohonan ini.
Karl LaGrand dieksekusi dengan menggunakan metode suntik mati pada 24 Februari
1999. Sedangkan Walter LaGrand dieksekusi dengan metode gas chamber pada 3 Maret
1999. Beberapa jam sebelum eksekusi Walter LaGrand, pemerintah Negara Jerman
mengajukan permohonan ke ICJ untuk mendapatkan Provisional Court Order untuk
menunda eksekusi Walter LaGrand, namun US Supreme Court menyatakan bahwa ICJ tidak
memiliki yurisdiksi dalam kasus ini dan tetap menajalankan eksekusi Walter LaGrand.
Putusan Melalui Putusan ICJ pada 27 Juni 2001, ICJ menolak seluruh argument
Amerika Serikat dan menyatakan bahwa Amerika Serikat telah melanggar VCCR dengan
menjalankan default procedure-nya terhadap kasus ini.

II. FAKTA HUKUM

1. Pada tanggal 7 Januari 1982, Karl LaGrand dan Walter LaGrand, dua orang warga negara
Jerman yang telah tinggal di Amerika Serikat sejak berusia 3 tahun, melakukan sebuah
perampokan bersenjata yang menewaskan 1 orang warga Negara Amerika dan melukai 1
orang lainnya;
2. Berdasarkan putusan yang dibuat oleh Lembaga Peradilan Amerika Serikat, LaGrand
bersaudara dijatuhi hukuman mati dengan dakwaan tindakan terorisme. AS kemudian
mengetahui bahwa Lagrand bersaudara adalah warga negara Jerman namun tidak
memberitahukan hak hak mereka berdasarkan VCCR.

3. Setelah mengetahui hak-nya, LaGrand bersaudara meminta naik banding dengan

dasar tidak diberitahukan hak mereka atas batuan konsular, dan dengan itu mereka
tidak dapat membela diri dengan baik. Federal courts menolak dengan alasan dasar
tersebut hanya bisa diajukan di state courts, berdasarkan procedural default.

4. Karl LaGrand dieksekusi dengan menggunakan metode suntik mati pada 24 Februari 1999.
Sedangkan Walter LaGrand dieksekusi dengan metode gas chamber pada 3 Maret 1999.
 Beberapa jam sebelum eksekusi Walter LaGrand, pemerintah Negara Jerman mengajukan
permohonan ke ICJ untuk mendapatkan Provisional Court Order untuk menunda eksekusi
Walter LaGrand, namun US Supreme Court menyatakan bahwa ICJ tidak memiliki
yurisdiksi dalam kasus ini dan tetap menajalankan eksekusi Walter LaGrand.
5. Atas dasar itulah pihak Jerman membawa kasus ini ke Mahkamah Internasional
(International Court of Justice).

III. PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH INTERNASIONAL

--- Jurisdiction and Admisibility---
Aplikasi Jerman dapat diterima, berdasarkan pasal 36 paragraf 1 statuta ICJ dan pasal 1
optional protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.

--- Mengenai Pokok Permasalahan ---

1. Amerika dengan tidak memberitahukan LaGrand bersaudara atas hak-haknya telah

melanggar pasal 36 ayat 1(b) VCCR dan dengan mencegah Jerman untuk
memberikan bantuan konsuler AS telah melanggar pasal 36 ayat 1 VCCR;
2. Dengan tidak memberikan kesempatan bagi Lagrand bersaudara untuk
menggunakan VCCR dan dengan menerapkan Ketentuan procedural defaults AS
melanggar pasal 36 (2) VCCR;

3. Provisional orders ICJ bersifat mengikat dan AS telah melanggar kewajiban intenasionalnya
dengan tidak melaksanakan putusan sementara ICJ pada kasus ini;

4. Amerika Serikat diharuskan menyesuaikan hukum nasionalnya berdasarkan

konvensi tersebut dan memberikan jaminan terhadap Jerman bahwa diwaktu yang
akan datang bentuk-bentuk kelalaian tersebut tidak akan terulang kembali,
terutama kepada warga negara Jerman.

Pertimbangan Putusan
1. Aplikasi Jerman dapat diterima, berdasarkan pasal 36 paragraf 1 statuta ICJ dan pasal 1
optional protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Pada optional protocol
tersebut jerman menggunakan compulsory jurisdiction ICJ untuk memasukan kasus ini ke
ICJ. Pasal 36 menciptakan hak spesifik terhadap individual asing berdasarkan hukum
internasional. sehingga Article I of the optional protocol dapat diterapkan pada warga
negara individual yang ditahan;
2. Procedural default tidak dapat diterapkan untuk mencegah dilaksanakannya hak hak yang
dimiliki oleh tahanan berdasarkan VCCR. Dengan penerapan procedural default maka akan
mencegah berlakunya pasal 36 ayat 1[1] secara penuh sehingga melanggar pasal 36 ayat
2[2].
3. AS diahruskan untuk memperbaiki penerapan hukum dimana pasal 36 VCCR telah
dilanggar. ICJ menganggap bahwa dengan lalainya AS memberikan consular notification,
permintaan maaf dari AS tidak mencukupi. Sehingga perbaikan penerapan terhadap
putusan tersebut harus diperbaiki.
http://ksh-unpad.blogspot.co.id/2011/03/lagrand-case.html
LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States) case brief, 526 U.S. 111 (1999)

LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States)

526 U.S. 111 (1999)
Procedural History:
Multiple plaintiff action against a state for violation of the Vienna Convention.

Overview:
-Germany (P) filed suit in the International Court of justice against the United States (D),
claiming that U.S. law enforcement personnel failed to advise aliens upon their arrests of their
rights under the Vienna Convention. Article 36(l)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations provides that a state trying an alien in a death sentence case must inform the alien of
his rights to have his consular authorities informed of the arrest.
-Paraguay (P), Germany (P), and Mexico (P) filed suit in the International Court of justice
against the United States (D), claiming that U.S. law enforcement personnel failed to advise
aliens upon their arrest of their rights, and that as a remedy for violation of the Vienna
Convention, state courts should review and reconsider the death sentences to determine if the
lack of consular access prejudiced the aliens.
-Germanys (P) case involved LaGrand and his brother, who was executed before the matter
came to the I.C.j. The !.C.). found that the United States (D) breached its obligations to Germany
(P) under the Convention by not immediately informing La Grand and his brother of the right of
consular notification, and by failing to provide judicial review of the conviction and sentence.

Issue:
Does a state that breaches its obligations to another under the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations by failing to inform an arrested alien of the right to consular notification and to provide
judicial review of the aliens conviction and sentence also violate individual rights held by the
alien under international law?

Rule:
a state that breaches its obligations to another under the Vienna Convention on consular relations
by failing to inform an arrested alien of the right to consular notification and to provide judicial
review of the aliens conviction sentence also violates individual rights held by the alien under
international law.

Analysis:
Diplomatic efforts by the German ambassador and German Members of Parliament and the
recommendation of Arizonas clemency board, failed to change the mind of Arizona Governor
Jane Dee Hull, who insisted that the executions of the LaGrand brothers be carried out. Karl
LaGrand was executed on February 24, 1999, by lethal injection, and Walter LaGrand was
executed March 3, 1999, by gas chamber. Compare this case to a ruling by the I.C.J. involving
Mexican nationals, Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), 2004 I.C.J.
12, and the U.S. Supreme Courts refusal to give effect to the I.C.J.s Avena decision in Medellin
v. Texas, 128 S. Ct 1346 (2008).

Outcome:
-A state that breaches its obligations to another under the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations by failing to inform an arrested alien of the right to consular notification and
to provide judicial review of the aliens conviction and sentence also violates individual rights
held by the alien under international law. The ordinary meaning of the clause said authorities
shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph of
Article 36 suggests that the right to be informed of the rights under the Convention is an
individual right of every national of a state that is party to the Convention.
Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America)
Citation: 2004 I.C.J. 1 (Mar 31)

Case Facts

Fifty one Mexican nationals were in jail on various charges. This included three
prisoners who had been convicted of a capital crime and who were on death row.
At the time of arrest, the prisoners were not warned that they had the right to contact the
Embassy of Mexico.
Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights 36(1)(b), foreign nationals have the
right to contact their embassy at the time of their arrest.
The United States was a party to the Convention.
Mexico went to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ordered that the United
States "take all measures necessary" to prevent the execution.

Issue
Was the United States in breach of their obligations under the treaty?

Holding
Yes, The ICJ found that the United States was indeed in breach of their treaty obligations.

Analysis

The ICJ found sthat in order to make it good, the United States would have to review
the Mexican nationals' sentences.
Mexico had pushed to have the sentences be annulled, but the ICJ did not feel that it was
required.

What you should learn from this case

Foreign nationals have a right to contact their embassy at the time of arrest if the country is a
party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights.

http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2014/04/case-concerning-avena-and-other-mexican.html
Alabama claims, maritime grievances of the United States against Great Britain, accumulated during and
after the American Civil War (186165). The claims are significant in international law for furthering the
use of arbitration to settle disputes peacefully and for delineating certain responsibilities of neutrals
toward belligerents. The dispute centred on the Confederate cruiser Alabama, built in England and used
against the Union as a commerce destroyer, which captured, sank, or burned 68 ships in 22 months
before being sunk by the USS Kearsarge off Cherbourg, Fr. (June 1864).

At the outset of the war, a Federal blockade of Southern ports and coasts automatically extended
belligerent status to the Confederacy. To protect its own interests, Britain took the lead among
European countries in proclaiming its neutrality (May 14, 1861). The Confederacy immediately set about
building a navy to engage the Unions naval power and to destroy its merchant marine. Along with
several other ships, the Alabama was built or fitted out privately on British territory and put to sea
despite the belated intervention of the British government.

As early as October 1863, the U.S. minister to Great Britain, Charles Francis Adams, protested that the
British must take responsibility for the damages caused by British-built Confederate raiders, but he
conceded that his government would be willing to submit the matter to arbitration. Amid bombastic
U.S. threats of annexing Canada, Anglo-American misunderstanding was exacerbated after the end of
the Civil War by unsettled disputes over Canadian fisheries and the northwestern boundary. A proposed
settlement in the Johnson-Clarendon Convention was angrily rejected by the United States. To avoid
further deterioration of Anglo-American relations, a joint high commission was set up, and on May 8,
1871, the parties signed the Treaty of Washington, which, by establishing four separate arbitrations,
afforded the most ambitious arbitral undertaking the world had experienced up to that time. In
addition, Great Britain expressed official regret over the matter.

Certain wartime maritime obligations of neutrals, already agreed to in article 6 of the treaty, were
outlined in the principal arbitration of the Alabama claims, meeting at Geneva, as follows: that a
neutral government must use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping,
within its jurisdiction, of any vessel believed to be intended to carry a war against a power with
which it was at peace and to prevent the departure of such a vessel (the substance of this clause
was included in article 8 of the 1907 Hague Convention) and that a neutral must not permit its
ports or waters to be used as a base of naval operations for similar purposes. In addition, on Sept.
14, 1872, the tribunal voted unanimously that Britain was legally liable for direct losses caused
by the Alabama and other ships and awarded the United States damages of $15,500,000 in gold.

This settlement gave new impetus to the process of arbitration, which had been latent for many
years.

The Alabama claims were brought by the United States against Great Britain for the damage
caused by several Confederate warships built in Liverpool during the Civil War, most notably
the commerce raiders Alabama and Florida. The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 forbade
the construction and outfitting of foreign warships. The Confederates evaded the letter of this
law during the early years of the war by various ruses and managed to purchase a number of
cruisers. After these vessels were completed, they destroyed or captured more than 250
American merchant ships and caused the conversion of 700 more to foreign flags. By the end of
the war, the U.S. Merchant Marine had lost half its ships. The subsequent demands for
compensation took the title of the vessel that had done the most damage-Alabama.

Most historians now believe that the raiders worst effect was on the U.S. Merchant Marine,
which never regained its prewar standing, rather than on the actual course of the war. But at the
time many Americans believed that the raiders had indeed lengthened the war.

British and U.S. diplomats worked out the Johnson-Clarendon Convention of 1869,
recommending a commission to review the Alabama claims, but this proposal met overwhelming
defeat in the Senate, where Charles Sumner, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
spoke passionately against it. He maintained that the British were accountable not only for
private citizens losses but for all the costs of the war after Gettysburg, on the grounds that the
Confederates were defeated by then except for their maritime operations. He proposed a
compensation of $2 billion and recommended the cession of Canada as well.

Diplomacy resumed nevertheless, and in 1871 Secretary of State Hamilton Fish negotiated the
Treaty of Washington, calling again for an arbitration panel. This time the proposal was accepted
on May 8. The arbitrators met in Geneva in 1871-1872. They dismissed the indirect claims for
war costs but granted the full amount of private compensation requested, $15 million.

The Readers Companion to American History. Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, Editors.
Copyright 1991 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/alabama-claims

https://www.britannica.com/event/Alabama-claims

http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXIX/125-134.pdf

Loans case

http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/series-a.php?p1=9&p2=1

http://legal.un.org/PCIJsummaries/index.html

Where there is a conflict between international obligations and national law, the international
rule prevails. Under UN General Assembly 1949 and Article 13, every state has the duty to carry
out its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law.
On Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, article 27 states that a party may not use the
provisions of its national law as excuse for its failure to perform a treaty. Article 46 permits a
state to argue that its consent to a treaty was cancel at the time was a violation of internal law. In
LaGrand case the International Court of Justice consider the consequences if the US failure to
give timely notification to two German nationals of their right of protection under Article 36 of
the Vienna Convention. In this case the court held that an apology for any future violation of
Article 36 would be enough.

1All national legal systems accept customary international law as a part of National Law. In
1999 the Appeal Court of Scots held that a rule of customary international law is a rule of Scots
law. Lord Denning in the case of Trendex Ltd stated that when international law changed the
English court has to apply the new rules of international law.

National courts do not only have to decide whether to apply a rule of international law but also to
determine the meaning and the effect of the international rule in the domestic law. In R v Jones
concerning a preventing crime and although a crime of aggression existed in international law,
this crime did not follow that aggression was an offence in domestic law.

The question, if international law applies directly to national law was clarified by European
Court of Justice. In the case of US V Alvarez in 1992, a national of Mexico, was abducted in an
operation for which US DEA was responsible. Supreme Court accepted that the abduction
violated international law principles.

On 2008 the United States Supreme Court concluded for the case of Medellin v. Texas, the case
which is discussed and analyzed below.

2Medellin V Texas facts:

Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death for participating in the
gang rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston. Medellin raised a post-conviction
challenge arguing that the state had violated his rights under the Vienna Convention, a treaty to
which the United States is a party. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention gives any foreign
national detained for a crime the right to contact his consulate. After his petition was ultimately
dismissed by the Supreme Court, Medellin's case returned to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. Medellin's argument rested in part on a ruling of the International Court of Justice
holding that the U.S. had violated the Vienna Convention rights of 51 Mexican nationals and that
their convictions must be reconsidered. Medellin argued that the Vienna Convention granted him
an individual right that state courts must respect, a possibility left open by the Supreme Court's
2006 decision in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon. Medellin also cited a memorandum from the
President of the United States that instructed state courts to comply with the ICJ's rulings by
rehearing the cases. Medellin argued that the Constitution gives the President broad power to
ensure that treaties are enforced, and that this power extends to the treatment of treaties in state
court proceedings.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected each of Medellin's arguments and dismissed his
petition. The court interpreted Sanchez-Llamas as standing for the principle that rulings of the
ICJ are not binding on state courts. The Texas court stood by its position that allowing Medellin
to raise the Vienna Convention issue after his trial would violate state procedural rules, and that
those rules were not supplanted by the Convention. The President had no authority to order the
enforcement in state court of an ICJ ruling, because that would imply a law-making power not
allocated to him by the Constitution.

The International Court of Justice, located in the Hague, is a tribunal established pursuant to the
United Nations Charter to adjudicate disputes between member states. In the Case Concerning
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, that tribunal considered a claim brought by Mexico against
the United States. The ICJ held that, based on violations of the Vienna Convention, 51 named
Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their state-court convictions
and sentences in the United States. This was so regardless of any forfeiture of the right to raise
Vienna Convention claims because of a failure to comply with generally applicable state rules
governing challenges to criminal convictions.

Petitioner Jos Ernesto Medelln, who had been convicted and sentenced in Texas state court
for murder, is one of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the Avena decision. Relying on the
ICJs decision and the Presidents Memorandum, Medelln filed an application for a writ of
habeas corpus in state court. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellns
application as an abuse of the writ under state law, given Medellns failure to raise his Vienna
Convention claim in a timely manner under state law. We granted certiorari to decide two
questions. First, is the ICJs judgment in Avena directly enforceable as domestic law in a state
court in the United State

Second, does the Presidents Memorandum independently require the States to provide review
and reconsideration of the claims of the 51 Mexican nationals named in Avena without regard to
state procedural default rules?

We conclude that neither Avena nor the Presidents Memorandum constitutes directly
enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas
petitions.