Human Rights Treaties in State Courts: The International Prospects of State Constitutionalism after Medellín
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
September 26, 2011
115 Penn State Law Review 1051 (2011)
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper No. 2011-04
Subnational implementation of human rights law has been the subject of increasing interest among scholars and litigators in recent years, building on the call for independent state constitutionalism and the rise of New Federalism. The Supreme Court's decision in Medellín v. Texas may have the effect of limiting the space for this kind of independent state level initiative. This Essay examines the conditions under which state courts have engaged with the international human rights treaties the United States has signed or ratified, and considers whether and how these treaties will be affected by the Medellín decision. I conclude that because state courts have been more receptive to arguments based on treaties as non-binding persuasive authority, even the broadest reading of the decision will not end this type of human rights advocacy.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 23
Keywords: State constitutionalism, federalism, treaty implementation, human rights
Date posted: November 17, 2011 ; Last revised: February 20, 2015
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.266 seconds