Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:55:58.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theories as to the Applicability of International Law in the Federal Courts of the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Harold H. Sprout
Harold H. Sprout*
Affiliation:
Of the Faculty of Politics and International Relations, Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Every student of international law knows that the federal courts in the United States apply rules derived from international law. At least five theories have been offered to explain the basis of the authority of such rules before the courts. This study is limited strictly to an analysis, comparison, and appraisal of these various theories in the light of federal judicial opinion.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 1932 , pp. 280 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1932

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Professor Quincy Wright mentions four of these theories, but without discussion or appraisal, in a treatise entitled The Enforcement of International Law Through Municipal Law in the United States (Urbana, 1915), p. 225, n. 8, 10.

2 The Venus (1814), 8 Cranch, 253, 297; Johnson v. Twenty-one Bales, etc. (1814), Fed. Cas. No. 7417, p. 857.

3 Bentzon v. Boyle (1815), 9 Cranch, 191, 198.

4 United States v. The Schooner La Jeune Eugenie (1822), Fed. Cas. No. 15551, p. 846. 280

5 The Antelope (1825), 10 Wheat. 66.

6 Cf. Article 3, Section 2.

7 Fundamental Concepts of Public Law (N. Y., 1924), p. 295.

8 Elliot, J., Debates on the Constitution (Wash., 1845), 5, p. 130 Google Scholar.

9 Farrand, M., Records of the Federal Convention (New Haven, 1911), 1, p. 244 Google Scholar.

10 Farrand, op. eit., Vol. 2, p. 157.

11 Cf. Henfield's Case (1793), Fed. Cas. No. 6360, p. 1120; and United States v. Ravara(1793), 2 Dali. 297, 298.

12 Farrand, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 186.

13 Constitution, Article 1, seetion 8, clause 10.

14 Farrand, op cit., Vol. 2, pp. 570, 614, 615.

15 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 615.

16 ibid., Vol. 3, p. 332.

17 Cf. Jefferson, T., in Am. St. Pap: Foreign Relations, 1, p. 150; and Randolph, E., in 1 Ops. Atty. Gen. 27.Google Scholar

18 Cf. Scott, J. B., “The Place of International Law in American Jurisprudence,” in Green Bag (1903), Vol. 15, p. 164, 169.

19 Cf. The Rapid (1814), 8 Cranch, 155, 162, which appears to be about the only judicial utterance to this effect.

20 Baldwin, S. E., “The Part Taken by Courts of Justice in the Development of International Law,” in Am. Law. Rev. (1901), 35, p. 214, 220 Google Scholar.

21 (1737), Cas. t. Talbot, 281.

22 Triquet v. Buth (1764), 3 Burr. 1478. It is perhaps important to note that another report of the same case, in 1 Blackstone, 471, contains no mention of the doctrine quoted in the text, although there is full recognition of the principie that the rights of diplomats depend ultimately upon the law of nations, and that the statute of 7 Anne, c. 12, was only declaratory of that law. In other cases of this period, involving precisely the same questions, there is no mention of the doctrine that international law is part of the common law, which tends to show that this doctrine was by no means as well established as Lord Mansfield claimed it was, in the report in 3 Burr. 1478.

23 Cf. Bryce, J., Studies in History and Jurisprudence (N. Y., 1901), p. 602 Google Scholar. “It should be noted,” writes Mr. Cyril Picoiotto, “that there is no mention in these judgments [i.e., Triquet v. Bath and other cases involving questions under 7 Anne, c. 12, and the law of nations] of a word frequently found in the later decisions—the word assent. For the judges of those days intemational law could rest entirely on an a priori basis, or on an a priori basis fortified by a modicum of practice.” The Relation of International Law to the Law of England and of the United States of America (N. Y., 1915), p. 83.

24 Bryce, op. cit., p. 601. “The common law of England,” argued Lord Ellesmere, “is grounded upon the law of God, and extends itself to the original law of nature, and the universal law of nations… .” Case of Postnati (1608), 2 Howard's State Trials, 659, 670. For further citations,cf. Pound, R., and Plucknett, T. F. T., Readings on the History and System of the Common Law (Rochester, 1927), p. 33.

25 Bk. 4, Chap. 5, p. 67.

26 (1767), 4 Burr. 2015.

27 Baldwin, op. cit., p. 221; Coxe, B., An Essay on Judicial Power and Unconstitutional Legislation (Phila., 1893), p. 284; Henfield's Case, supra, p. 1117; Elliot, Debates, etc., Vol. 3, p. 503,507; and note especially that Mr. Chief Justice McKean, in Respublica v. DeLongchamps (1784), 1 Dali. (Pa.) 111, copied directly from Lord Mansfield's words in Triquet v. Bath.

28 Cf. Hamilton, A., “Letters of Camillus.” No. 20, Works, edited by H. C. Lodge, 5, p. 436;Google Scholar 1 Ops. Atty. Gen. 68, 69; 3 Ops. Atty. Gen. 671.

29 (1795), 3 Dallas, 133.

30 (1795), 3 Dallas, 161.

31 (1796), 3 Dallas, 199.

32 Ibid., p. 228.

33 Henfield's Case, supra, p. 1112, 11201

34 Ibid., p. 1117.

35 Ibid,., p. 1119.

36 Bentzon v. Boyle, supra. For opinion in aecord, cf. The Rapid, supra; The Dos Hermanos (1825), 10 Wheat. 306, 310; The Sirm (1871), 13 Wall. 389, 392; The Manila Prize Cases (1903), 188 U. S. 254, 272. Many others might be cited.

37 (1900), 175 U. S. 677.

38 Ibid., p. 700. Cf. Hilton v. Guyot (1895), 159 U. S. 113, 163, for an earlier and more extravagant statement of the same doctrine by Mr. Justice Gray.

39 1 Ops. Atty. Gen. 27.

40 (1793), Fed. Cas. No. 6360.

41 Ibid., quoted in note appended to text of case.

42 International Law (N. Y., 1885), p. 37.

43 Introduction to the Study of International Law (6th ed., N. Y., 1891), p. 27.

44 Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), 2 Dali. 419, 474.

45 Ware v. Hylton, supra, 199, 281.

46 Jecker v. Montgomery (1855), 18 Howard, 110, 112.

47 Cf. Maine, op. cit., p. 37.

48 Penhallow t>. Doane (1795), 3 Dallas, 54, 91.

49 The Sally (1814), 8 Cranch, 382, 384.

50 The Adeline (1815), 9 Cranch, 244, 284.

51 The Hampton (1867), 19 L. ed. 659, 661.

52 The Ship Rose (1901), 36 Ct. Cl. 290,302; c/. also The Schooner Jane (1901), 37 Ct. Cl. 24, The Schooner Endeavor (1909), 44 Ct. Cl. 242. Professor Pitman B. Potter has discussed these cases at Iength in an article entitled “The Relative Authority of International Law and National Law in the United States,” in this JOURNAL, Vol. 19 (1925), p. 315, cf. also United States v. Diekelman (1875), 92 U. S. 520.

53 The text of this decision may be found on page 399 of this issue of the JOURNAL.

54 (1900), 175 U. S. 677.

55 (1900), 175 U. S., p. 715, 717.

56 Cf. The Benito Estenger (1900), 176 U. S. 568, 571; and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), 169 U. S. 649, 707 (dissent).

57 International Law (3rd ed., by R. F. Roxburgh, London, 1920), Vol. 1, p. 25.

58 Ibid., p. 25;Foulke, R. R., A Treatise on International Law (Phila., 1920), Vol.1, p.169 Google Scholar; Willoughby, W. W., On the Constitution (New York, 1910), Vol.2, p.1013 Google Scholar; “The Legal Nature of International Law,” in this JOURNAL, Vol. 2 (1908), p. 357; and especially, Fundamental Concepts of Public Law (New York, 1924), p. 285.

59 Cf. Holdsworth, W. S., A History of English Law (London, 1925), Vol. 5, p. 25;Garner, J. W., Recent Developments in International Law (Calcutta, 1925), p. 5; Lauterpacht, H., Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law(London, 1927), p. 74; Stockton, C. H., Outlines of International Law (New York, 1914), p. 8; Scott, J. B., Cases on International Law (St. Paul, 1922), Preface; Puente, J. I., International Law as Applied to Foreign States (Chicago, 1928), p. 12; Pergler, Chas., Judicial Interpretation of International Law in the United States (New York, 1928), Chap. 1; and Wright, Quincy,op. cit., passim. These citations are typical rather than exhaustive.

60 “Conflicts of International Law With National Lawand Ordinances” in this Journal, Vol. 11 (1917), p. 1, 2; cf. also same writer, The Control of American Foreign Relations (New York, 1922), pp. 171-175; and Mandates Under the League of Nations (Chicago, 1930), pp. 282-285.

61 Cf. Harvard Law Review (1908), Vol. 22, p. 66.

62 American Foreign Policy, Camegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of Intercourse and Education, Publication No. 17, Washington, 1920, p. 112.

63 In this JOURNAL, Vol. 19 (1925), p. 315.

64 The Judicial Interpretation of International Law in the United States (New York, 1928), p. 14.

65 Op. cit., pp. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, and passim.

66 Cases on International Law (St. Paul, 1922), preface, pp. xi-xv; and “The Legal Nature of International Law,” in this JOURNAL, Vol. 1 (1907), p. 831, 837.

67 Op. cit., p. 74.

68 Huntington v. Attrill (1892), 146 U. S. 657; and the numerous dieta to the effect that intemational law is part of the municipal common law.

69 Reference is here made to a State of the American Union.

70 New York Life Insurance Co. t>. Hendren (1876), 92 U. S. 286; and cf. Lincoln, Levi, in 5 Ops. Atty. Gen. 691.

71 Cf. The Ship Rose, supra, The Schooner Jane, supra, and The Schooner Endeavor, supra. These are the cases principally in controversy between Mr. Pergler and Professor Potter; cf. Pergler, op. cit, p. 14.

72 Cf. The Maria (1799), 1 C. Rob, 340.

73 Picciotto, C. M., op. cit., p. 28.

74 The Maria (1799), 1 C. Rob. 340, 350.

75 The Walsingham, Packet (1799), 2 C. Rob. 77, 82.

76 The Recovery (1807), 6 C. Rob. 341, 348.

77 For further confirmation as to the influence of Stowell upon Story, cf. Story, W. W. (ed.), The Life and Letters of Joseph Story (Boston, 1851), Vol. 1, pp. 229, 307; Vol. 2, p. 14.

78 Cf. Glaas v. The Sloop Betsey (1794), 3 Dallas, 6,16; Talbot t>.Jansen supra, 133,161; The Sally, supra; The Alerta (1815), 9 Cranch, 365; The Caledonian (1819), 4 Wheaton, 100,103; The Santissima Trinidad (1822), 7 Wheaton, 283, 350; The Prize Cases (1862), 2 Black, 635, 686; Rose v. Himely (1808), 4 Cranch, 241, 276; The Mary (1815), 9 Cranch, 126,150; The Gran Para (1822), 7 Wheaton, 471, 489; United States v. Weed (1866), 5 Wallace, 62, 71. Compare the English case of The Zamora, L. R. (1916), 2 A. C. 77, 96.

79 Cf. The Eliza (1800), 4 Dallas, 37, 43; United States v. The Active (1814), Fed. Cas. No. 14420, p. 757; The Florida (1879), 101 U. S. 37, 42; Commodore Stewart's Case (1864), 1 Ct. Cl. 113,118; The Emulous (1813), Fed. Cas. No. 4479, p. 698; The Hampton, supra, 659, 661.

80 Cf., especially section III, ante.

81 Cf., for example, The Paquete Habana (1900), 175 U. S. 677, in which the court, purport- ing to act on the law of the land theory, appealed almost exclusively to foreign sources for evidence of a rule of intemational law by which to invalidate action taken under the author- ity of the executive pursuant to the conduct of the war with Spain.