In Re Marriage of King: Amicus Curiae Brief of International Law Scholars in Support of Appellant

Raven Lidman

Abstract

The status of the right to counsel under transnational law' is highly relevant to this Court's consideration of the scope of the right to counsel in Washington. The persuasive value of such law has been accepted by U.S. courts at all levels. These legal authorities are particularly relevant to state court jurisprudence, since our federal system accords states the primary responsibility for fulfilling many of our international human rights obligations. In this instance, the value of looking to foreign and international law is especially relevant. It was a family law case in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) made the landmark decision that a "fair trial" often may require the assistance of counsel. Airey v. Ireland, 32 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1979).2 That decision reflected the jurisprudence of two-thirds of the then member states of the Council of Europe (COE).3 The right to publicly provided civil legal counsel extends back centuries in some countries and across diverse legal, cultural, and political traditions. Forty-nine member countries of the COE are implementing Airey and its progeny.4 Amici commend to this court the respect accorded the right to civil counsel within our common law tradition and within other legal systems. The status of the right to counsel under transnational law' is highly relevant to this Court's consideration of the scope of the right to counsel in Washington. The persuasive value of such law has been accepted by U.S. courts at all levels. These legal authorities are particularly relevant to state court jurisprudence, since our federal system accords states the primary responsibility for fulfilling many of our international human rights obligations.