International law refers to the set of legal rules and norms that govern interactions between nations, as well as relations between individuals and international organizations. Over the years, the Supreme Court of the United States has frequently had to grapple with questions related to international law, often with significant implications for U.S. foreign policy. In this article, we will examine some of the most important cases related to international law heard by the Supreme Court, exploring how these cases have shaped U.S. legal and diplomatic practices.
The Paquete Habana (1900)
The Paquete Habana was a Cuban fishing vessel that was seized by U.S. naval forces during the Spanish-American War. The ship’s owners filed a suit arguing that the seizure was illegal under international law. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that customary international law should be presumed to be part of U.S. law unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution or federal law. This decision has had significant implications for how international law figures into U.S. legal reasoning.
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004)
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain was a case involving the alleged torture of a Mexican citizen by agents of the Mexican drug cartel. Alvarez-Machain was eventually apprehended by U.S. authorities and brought to the United States to stand trial. In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court held that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) could be used to enforce certain international law norms in U.S. courts. This decision has led to a range of lawsuits being brought against corporations and individuals accused of human rights violations abroad.
Medellin v. Texas (2008)
Medellin v. Texas was a case involving a Mexican national who had been convicted of murder in Texas and was facing the death penalty. Mexico argued that Medellin’s right to consular notification under the Vienna Convention had been violated, and that his conviction should be overturned. The Supreme Court held that the Vienna Convention did not create individual rights that could be enforced in U.S. courts absent implementing legislation from Congress. This decision had significant diplomatic implications, straining U.S.-Mexico relations and leading to tension with other countries.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum was a case involving Nigerian citizens who alleged that Royal Dutch Petroleum had aided and abetted the Nigerian government in committing human rights abuses. The Supreme Court held that the ATS did not apply to conduct that occurred outside of the United States, absent a demonstrated connection to the United States. This decision has been criticized by human rights advocates, who argue that it places significant limits on U.S. courts’ ability to hold companies accountable for human rights abuses abroad.
Conclusion
International law plays a critical role in shaping U.S. legal and diplomatic practices. The cases discussed above represent just a few examples of the many cases that the Supreme Court has heard related to international law. Through its decisions, the Supreme Court has established important principles related to how international law intersects with U.S. law, including the role of customary international law, the ability of U.S. courts to enforce international law norms, and the geographic scope of U.S. law with respect to conduct abroad. As such, it is important that we continue to engage with these cases and their implications for U.S. foreign policy and international relations.
The practice of international law can impinge on cases taken on and decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court both in reference to legal controversies which span international borders and to the use of other law codes as sources for guidance and instruction.
The relevance of international laws is generally accepted by professionals in and observers of the American field of law when it is in regard to the former category, but the practice has caused more controversy in the latter such cases.
Some American political and legal arguments contend that the sovereign authority of the country as a whole is imperiled by reliance on foreign codes of law for any kind of authority. Despite this argument, the field of international law has in the past derived much of use from American Constitutional law, and with the expansion of comprehensive and functioning legal systems across the world, it is not unlikely that the Supreme Court will continue to deal with the proper relationship of international laws to the American judicial system.
Early Supreme Court rulings on the issue of international law often involved issues and disputes arising between the ships of different countries engaged in sea commerce. In cases of this kind and similar legal controversies, the Supreme Court would openly examine international laws and mention such codes as authorities in its opinion. A Â specific instance of international law occurring in the early period of the Supreme Court is a case involving questions over property included in the Louisiana Purchase from France and also held at a previous point by Spain. To this end, the Justices studied French and Spanish real estate statutes before rendering a the decision for the American litigant.
Similar questions arose much later in reference to inter-North American commerce conducted as part of NAFTA and the recovery of property lost in Europe during World War II. A more controversial appearance of international laws in the Supreme Court theory has been the citation of other countries’ law statutes in regard to the rights of Americans, which in turn have prompted complaints of American courts compromising American sovereignty. The international law controversy began toward the end of the 20th Century, when Justices began looking to legal codes for practices and rules that they considered more humane and fair than those currently observed in the United
States.
Legal and political commentators would sometimes notice this trend, to their chagrin or endorsement, when they saw the Justices’ own citation of foreign and international law in the opinions they rendered. Discussion of the use of international law by the Supreme Court came to new prominence when Justice Anthony Kennedy cited precedents from general European laws and English courts in the Lawrence v. Texas case disallowing the legal prohibition of same-sex intercourse.
Kennedy would later cite international law to similar ends, and to similarly much-noted, often reviled effect, in appealing to the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child against the practice of executing minors.
