When the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was negotiated in 1963, it was clear that its most important provision was article 36, which prescribed rules on Communication and Contact with Nationals of the Sending State. The broad entitlement of consuls to communicate with their fellow nationals held in detention was well established in customary international law; but the detail was unclear. Was notification to the consul or his sending State obligatory? How soon after arrest could the consul demand access? What if the detainee objected to notification whether because he sought asylum from the authorities of the sending State or did not wish his arrest and possible conviction to be on record back home? At the height of the Cold War, States held differing views on these questions. Compromises were agreed, but dissatisfaction on the part of many States meant that the Vienna Consular Convention was slow to build up its current, almost universal participation and continued to be supplemented by a network of bilateral consular conventions providing different or more precise provisions on initial and recurrent access. Consuls had to be aware of their own instructions, of the domestic law of the receiving State, whether the Vienna Convention was in force between their home State and their host State, and whether it was supplemented or overridden by the terms of a bilateral convention. Those travelling or living abroad were often quite unaware of their entitlement on arrest to assistance from a consul for such matters as bail, competent legal representation and interpretation.

Over the past 15 years this has changed—in part due to the increasing numbers of migrants and tourists, to efforts by many States to raise awareness of what their consuls can and cannot do for their fellow nationals, and to wide publicity given to cases where travellers are caught unawares by local laws on such matters as photography of aircraft or driving. A series of high-profile cases against the United States before its Supreme Court and before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have shown up new problems and have highlighted that it is not enough for ratified treaties automatically to be the law of the land—they must also be given detailed implementation at the level of police and prison authorities. The Breard, Lagrand and Avena decisions by the ICJ have been deeply embarrassing for the US, but for governments and lawyers elsewhere they have clarified many uncertainties, not only on the procedure of access and on its acceptance as an individual right of the detainee but on the remedies available to the individual where access has not been provided. These cases have probably served to raise standards of national implementation as well as general consciousness of the individual entitlement to consular assistance.

The Law of Consular Access is written by three authors with practical experience of this litigation in the US and before the ICJ as well as wide scholarly understanding of consular law. It is intended mainly as a guide to consuls, to national enforcement officers in police, prison or immigration authorities, and to those representing detainees who may have limited background in international or consular law. Unavoidably the focus is mainly on the US history and on the recent flood of cases brought by detainees there whose rights to consular access were denied throughout proceedings which often led to their conviction and execution. But the book draws on wider sources—particularly on the national instructions given to consuls, to police and prison officers as well as on cases in other jurisdictions. The structure into which the issues are divided is extremely clearly and carefully designed for practical use and the documentary extracts from cases, legislative and administrative guidance are well chosen to illustrate the points made in the introductory explanation to each section.

The material on remedies is divided between remedies at the domestic level and remedies at the international level—in turn divided between diplomatic protest, the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American human rights organs. There is a helpful account of the successive cases before the International Court showing how the Court developed and refined (or withheld) its views on contested issues. One might wish that this had been interwoven more explicitly with the responses by the US Administration—which with the one hand raised the spirits of international lawyers around the world by directing ‘review and reconsideration’ by State authorities of the individual death row cases following the International Court's judgment on the merits in Avena, but with the other hand dashed them to the ground by withdrawing the US acceptance of the Optional Protocol on Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which had opened the way to successive defeats. No other State has withdrawn acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction in regard to this Convention, and the authors question whether the withdrawal is effective.

The book supplies practical guidance on what support consuls can and actually do provide and on the nature of the individual right—whether it should be classed as a human right, as a constitutional right and whether it is a right against the sending State. These may appear academic questions, but within national systems the answers can be of critical importance.

Outside the field of consular law, the main interest of the cases lies in the light cast on the relationship between international law and national laws. The International Court has finally determined that its provisional measures are legally binding and clarified the limits of the obligation on States bound by its judgments to give them ‘full effect’. But there remain deep divisions as to the binding effect of ICJ interpretations of international commitments—with the Supreme Court majority asserting (in Sanchez-Lama v Oregon) that, if these commitments are under the Constitution part of US federal law, it is the Supreme Court which is mandated to determine their meaning. The US has been shown in the matter of consular access to have unusual difficulties with compliance because of the multi-ethnic composition of its population and the multi-level nature of its law enforcement. But the most positive outcome of the various cases may be seen in the range of measures now in force to assist compliance—from a Handbook to law enforcement officials at all levels and educational seminars to posters for display in police stations and prisons. This is an example of making treaties work—better late than—but one which should highlight for all States the importance of attention to the detail of implementation at the time of ratification.

This is a topical, practical and fascinating book—to be held for reference by consular posts and ministries of foreign affairs everywhere and used as a specialized supplement to Lee and Quigley's excellent 3^rd edition of Consular Law and Practice (OUP, Oxford, 2008).