The ICJ may be involved, but this is an argument about the Vienna Convention, and the enforcement of the rights of foreign nationals under that Convention. The opinion does make an argument about the proper *implementation* of those obligations under the treaty, and the fact that legislation did not follow up with the requirements of that treaty. (And yes, the Senate actually did ratify the Vienna Convention.)

In fact, this case wasn’t even about the ICJ, but about the powers of the federal executive versus the role of federal legislation.

So I don’t have a problem with discussions of proper procedure, what branch should do what, etc. That’s the kind of decision that the Supreme Court is meant to handle. But it just smacks of a lack of fair play to state simply that the rules of international law should not apply just because it’s international law, imposed on “us” by “foreigners”. This is a case where the legislation should have been there to ensure compliance without the intervention of the President or the ICJ, and people are viewing this as a great victory for sovereignty.

We didn’t fulfill our end of a *ratified* treaty. To just dismiss that as our right to “rule ourselves without interference” is to make the arrogant assumption that we should be the beneficiaries of treaties that we ourselves do not need to follow. If that really is the case, what reason do other countries have to follow suit?

When did Texas concede its right to govern to the international court?

What treaty did we sign and the senate approve that said we would surrender our right to try criminals in a court of law?

The only international law that governs us is the international law we write for ourselves. London, Seoul, Paris and Tokyo have no power over us except that which we give them. The same is true on a local level, on a state level, and on a national level. Government rules only with the consent of the governed. In this case, we never consented.

That’s the victory—that our right to self-rule was recognized, and the attempt to take that right from us was denied.

We’re sliding into a morass of hypocrisy here. We cannot expect to break the rules of international law and not accept the consequences of those actions.