Summary of Argument

Amnesty International and a number of other international amici have submitted a brief (hereinafter International Amici) which argues that the State of Florida is prohibited by certain international legal obligations from imposing a sentence of life in prison without parole (LWOP) on a juvenile. This brief is submitted in direct response to the International Amici and the limited arguments concerning international law made in the briefs of the petitioners and a small number of other amici. The assertion that the United States is the only nation on earth that permits the sentencing of juveniles to life in prison without parole is false. Moreover, the International Amici have not given this Court a comprehensive or accurate description of the juvenile sentencing laws in other nations.

The amici’s theory that the United States is bound to obey the provisions under Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child under the principle of jus cogens is without factual or legal foundation for at least three reasons:

• The jus cogens doctrine has no agreed elements or standards.

• Jus cogens has no application outside the invalidation of an offending treaty.

• The prohibition against juvenile life imprisonment does not satisfy the criteria for customary international law because there is no evidence that Article 37 reflects the general international practice of juvenile sentencing or that the other nations of the world feel legally compelled to obey its dictates.

The United States has taken reservations to the other treaties cited by the International Amici that render them inapposite to this case. Finally, we respectfully suggest that the use of international law to attempt to govern the people of the United States violates both the letter and spirit of our Constitution as well as the recognized international human rights principle of self determination.

Summary of Argument

Introduction

In response to Amnesty International's brief, this article examines the applicability of international law to the sentencing of juveniles to life in prison without parole (LWOP) in the United States. It argues that the international legal obligations cited by Amnesty International are not binding on the United States and that the use of international law in this context violates principles of self-determination.

International Law on Juvenile Sentencing

Contrary to Amnesty International's assertion, the United States is not the only country that permits LWOP for juveniles. Moreover, the brief provides an incomplete and inaccurate account of juvenile sentencing laws in other nations.

Jus Cogens and Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Amnesty International's reliance on the jus cogens doctrine to invalidate LWOP for juveniles is unfounded for several reasons:

• The doctrine lacks agreed-upon elements or standards.

• It is inapplicable outside the context of treaty invalidation.

• The prohibition against juvenile LWOP does not meet the criteria for customary international law, as there is no evidence of widespread international practice or a sense of legal obligation.

Reservations to International Treaties

The United States has taken reservations to the other treaties cited by Amnesty International, rendering them inapplicable to this case.

Self-Determination and the Constitution

The use of international law to govern the United States violates the principle of self-determination and the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

Summary of Argument

International Arguments

Amnesty International and other international groups argue that Florida cannot sentence juveniles to life in prison without parole (LWOP) because it violates international law. They claim that the United States is the only country that allows this practice.

Response

This claim is incorrect. Other countries also allow LWOP sentences for juveniles. Additionally, the international groups have not provided a complete or accurate picture of juvenile sentencing laws in other countries.

Jus Cogens Doctrine

The international groups argue that the United States must follow Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits LWOP for juveniles, based on the "jus cogens" doctrine. However, this doctrine is not well-defined and has limited application. It does not require countries to follow specific laws.

Customary International Law

Article 37 does not meet the requirements for customary international law because there is no evidence that it is widely accepted or that countries feel obligated to follow it.

Other Treaties

The United States has made reservations to other treaties mentioned by the international groups, making them inapplicable to this case.

Self-Determination

Using international law to govern the United States violates the principle of self-determination, which is a fundamental human right.

Summary of Argument

What Amnesty International Says

Amnesty International and other international groups believe that Florida should not be allowed to sentence juveniles (people under 18) to life in prison without the possibility of parole (getting out early). They say that international law prohibits this.

The State of Florida's Response

Florida disagrees. They say that:

• Other countries do allow juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole.

• International law is not clear on this issue.

• The United States has the right to make its own laws.

Jus Cogens

Amnesty International argues that the prohibition against sentencing juveniles to life without parole is a rule of "jus cogens." This means that it is a rule that all countries must follow, even if they have not agreed to it in a treaty.

Florida's Argument Against Jus Cogens

Florida says that jus cogens is not a real rule because:

• There is no agreement on what rules are included in jus cogens.

• Jus cogens only applies to treaties, not to other types of international law.

• Most countries do not believe that they are required to follow the rule against sentencing juveniles to life without parole.

Other Treaties

Amnesty International also cites other treaties that they say prohibit sentencing juveniles to life without parole. However, Florida says that the United States has made exceptions to these treaties, so they do not apply in this case.

Conclusion

Florida believes that it has the right to sentence juveniles to life without parole, and that international law does not prohibit this.

Summary of Argument

Representatives, or people who speak for a larger group of people, from other countries are saying that Florida shouldn't be allowed to sentence kids to life in prison without the chance to get out. They say that it's against international rules.

But the State of Florida says that's not true. They say:

• Other countries do allow kids to get life in prison without parole.

• The international rules don't apply to the United States because we didn't agree to all of them.

• It's up to the people of the United States to decide their own laws, not other countries.

• There's no clear definition of what international rules are most important.

• International rules can only be used to cancel treaties, not to change laws.

• Most countries don't have a rule against sentencing kids to life in prison, so it's not an international rule that everyone has to follow.