Editing LaGrand case (section)

==The case==
{{Moresources|section|date=December 2021}}
Germany initiated legal action in the International Court of Justice against the United States regarding Walter LaGrand. Hours before Walter LaGrand was due to be executed, Germany applied for the Court to grant a provisional court order, requiring the United States to delay the execution of Walter LaGrand, which the court granted.

Germany then initiated action in the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] for enforcement of the provisional order. In its judgment,<ref>''Federal Republic of Germany et al. vs. United States et al.'', 526 U.S. 111, per curiam</ref> the U.S. Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction with respect to Germany's complaint against Arizona due to the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eleventh Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution|U.S. constitution]], which prohibits federal courts from hearing lawsuits of foreign states against a U.S. state. With respect to Germany's case against the United States, it held that the doctrine of procedural default was not incompatible with the Vienna Convention, and that even if procedural default did conflict with the Vienna Convention it had been overruled by later federal law – the [[Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996]], which explicitly legislated the doctrine of procedural default. (Subsequent federal legislation overrides prior [[self-executing treaty]] provisions, ''[[Whitney v. Robertson]]'', {{ussc|124|190|1888}}).

The [[United States Solicitor General|U.S. Solicitor General]] sent a letter to the Supreme Court, as part of these proceedings, arguing that provisional measures of the International Court of Justice are not legally binding. The [[United States Department of State]] also conveyed the ICJ's provisional measure to the Governor of Arizona without comment. The Arizona clemency board recommended a stay to the governor, on the basis of the pending ICJ case; but the Governor of Arizona, [[Jane Dee Hull]], ignored the recommendation.

Germany then modified its complaint in the case before the ICJ, alleging furthermore that the U.S. violated international law by failing to implement the provisional measures. In opposition to the German submissions, the United States argued that the Vienna Convention did not grant rights to individuals but only to states; that the convention was meant to be exercised subject to the laws of each state party, which in the case of the United States meant subject to the doctrine of procedural default; and that Germany was seeking to turn the ICJ into an international court of criminal appeal.