Consular Assistance and Rights and Remedies: Comments on the ICJ's Judgment in the LaGrand Case 4. Conclusions When attempting to present general conclusions about the LaGrand case, it may be helpful to distinguish between the judgment itself, and the proceedings more generally. As to the judgment, the preceding discussion has shown that there is much more to it than the long-awaited decision on the legal effects of interim orders. It can be expected that the Court's findings on individual rights, on international law standards governing the domestic implementation of treaties, and on guarantees and assurances of non-repetition will equally influence the future development of international law. Given the diversity of these issues, it is of course difficult to evaluate the Court's handling of these issues in a general way. However, it does not seem too far-fetched to say that the Court has decided the relevant issues in a progressive manner, while at the same time - prudently - refraining from making general statements of principle. The progressive approach is visible for example in the majority's interpretation of Article 36(1)(b) CC as an individual rights guarantee. But it equally applies to the strengthening of guarantees and assurances of non-repetition as a distinct consequence of international wrongs, which, as has been noted, could influence the concept of state responsibility more generally.104 Conversely, despite its progressiveness, the Court declined to explore broader issues underlying the case, such as the human rights implications of the right to consular assistance, or the international legal rules governing the imposition of capital punishment. By combining both features, the Court has rendered a very convincing decision, which breaks new ground, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary discussions of matters of principle which might have endangered the acceptability of the judgment. As to the proceedings more generally, it is hard to overlook that, despite having obtained a judgment and an interim order in its favour, Germany has not attained one of its main goals, namely, to protect the life of Walter LaGrand. In a way, it may even seem ironic that the dramatic (and tragic) events of March 1999 should have eventually led to a ground-breaking judgment. While the Court's decision comes too late to help Walter LaGrand, it may provide a basis for solving future cases involving the right to consular notification in a less confrontational manner. By affirming the importance of the right and the need for its effective implementation in domestic legal systems, the Court has made it clear that international law is not neutral on the issues. This may well be the most important message of the LaGrand proceedings. 104 Moving beyond the scope of this contribution, one could of course also mention the Court's findings on the binding nature of interim orders.
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Sunday, February 09, 2003 10:16PM