ABSTRACT
Drawing on Supreme Court opinions and amicus briefs, this chapter explores how advocates against the juvenile death penalty moved international human rights standards from the periphery to the center of the debate. It shows how a majority of justices of the Supreme Court is receptive to international and foreign law as a tool to confirm interpretations of constitutional provisions, particularly the Eighth Amendment. It contends that the Roper majority legitimately used international law in die decision. In illustrating how the Court could have adopted a more radical interpretation of international law, this chapter demonstrates the potential for broader reliance on international law in the courts. Finally, the chapter suggests ways to use international human rights to advocate for children in the United States. The success of the campaign against the juvenile death penalty is a model for advocacy on other issues, such as reforming the juvenile justice system and enhancing economic rights for children.
