Private International Law before the United States Supreme Court: Recent Terms in Review

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles T. Kotuby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Private International Law

Act of State and Department of State: First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional De Cuba

1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 795-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas F. Lowenfeld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Recent Issue ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Formal Communication

No recent issue has so divided lawyers and writers in the field of international law as the question whether courts of one nation should sit in judgment on the acts of other nations with respect to foreign held property—sometimes, always, or never. The United States Supreme Court in Banco Nacional de Cubav. Sabbatinosaid the answer was never—or at least hardly ever—thus upholding and reaffirming the “act of state doctrine”. The Congress in the Hickenlooper (or Sabbatino) Amendmentmade an effort to reverse that ruling, an effort that has proved largely unsuccessful. Now the State Department has taken its turn, arguing in a formal communication to the Supreme Court that when it perceives no objection to adjudication on foreign policy grounds, the courts should judge the validity of the foreign nation's acts under international law standards—at least as to counterclaims.

State-Sponsored Abduction: A Comment on United States v. Alvarez-Machain

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 746-756 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Glennon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Justice ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Adequate Analysis

On June 15, 1992, the United States Supreme Court confronted what the Permanent Court of International Justice termed in The Lotus to be “the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State: … that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.” Contrary to popular criticism, the Court did not challenge that proposition. But it did apply, without adequate analysis, an antiquated doctrine that permits a defendant to be tried regardless of the unlawfulness of the seizure. In so doing, it ignored altogether the issue of presidential constitutional power to conduct such seizures. And it placed the issue squarely before Congress.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document