I must say that Howard Dean looks pretty comfortable up on the stage, and it's not just the open collar. This crowd likes the red-meat scraps he's tossing out.

I, however, am finding the way he's phrasing the foreign policy section of his presentation a little limiting (and oddly structured). Dean says that the way we get to "sit down at the table" with other nations on global challenges is regaining our "moral authority" (i.e. not torturing and not engaging in "misguided" wars).

Don't get me wrong, I too think that these "moral authority" issues are of the utmost importance. However, I disagree that we will have to wait to regain that authority before we're allowed to "sit down at the table." Other nations want the U.S. to sit down at the table now; in fact, on a lot of issues, they want the U.S. to chair the meeting.

Of course, I realize that this is simply Dean's clever way of plugging into a dominant rallying cry in the room. But the rest of the speech was largely devoid of serious discussion on serious global challenges, and I'm more than a little worried that the rest of foreign policy debate at this gathering will be focused on regaining an elusive idea that serves no grander purpose than making progressives feel good about themselves. The immense energy in this room will be better used pushing our next President toward practical and strong leadership on global challenges.

I'm in Austin this week for Netroots Nation, and, in addition to trying out every BBQ spot in the city, I'll be reporting back to you on how the progressive movement's online arm plans to push for its international priorities. If you'll recall, the discussion about global challenges (and international organizations) was pretty thin last year. There is tremendous energy and organization here. It will be a shame if it can't be used to push the next President, be he a Republican or Democrat, rapidly forward to meet the global challenges we face.

Howard Dean is in the house tonight.

The International Court of Justice (sometimes called the World Court--and not to be confused with the International Criminal Court) is a forum where United Nations member states can hash out legal disputes in a neutral setting. The cases can range from the somewhat banal (like a dispute between Ukraine and Romania over Black Sea maritime rights) to the highly contentious (like Bosnia accusing Serbia of committing genocide in the 1990s).

One of the more contentious cases before the court is Mexico's action against the United States to stay the execution of Mexican nationals being held on death row. The case of one of these Mexican nationals went all the way to the Supreme Court this year. In 1993, Jose E. Medellin confessed to raping and killing two teenage girls in Texas and was sentenced to death. The catch, though, is that under the 1963 Vienna Convention, foreign nationals have the right to notify their consulate when detained. Medellin was not given that right, so Mexico sued the United States at the International Court of Justice on his and other nationals behalf.

In March, the Supreme Court ruled that Medellin's execution can go ahead, despite the World Court's ruling. (Technically, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Administration had no right to tell the state of Texas to re-open the case, per the ICJ's direction). Mexico, however, has not given up. The case is still pending at the ICJ and yesterday the court once again ordered the United States to stay the execution of five Mexican nationals on death row.

Julian Ku of Opinio Juris explains some of the technicalities of yesterday's ruling and makes a prediction of his own:

The U.S. Supreme Court will reject any efforts to enforce this ICJ order. Texas will also ignore it and go ahead and execute the said Mexican nationals. In this way, the U.S. will act in admitted violation of its international law obligations under Article 92 and the ICJ Statute, thus further exposing the ICJ's orders as having no domestic legal significance and of relatively little moral significance either. Congress has other things on its mind, and there won't even be a bill introduced to try to give effect to the ICJ order. The presidential candidates won't even be asked about their views on this order. But I suppose Mexico's lawyers have to try everything they can, and I can't fault them for pulling out all the stops, no matter how hopeless.

(Image: The Peace Palace in the Hague, seat of the ICJ. Credit: The Hague Justice Portal)