You are on page 1of 15

Transnational Law Outline I. Transnational Legal Problems a. Conflicts Between National Laws i.

Autocephalous Greek- Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts, Inc replevin- to get back property that was stolen. Holy relics taken out of wall in Cyprus. Country split into north and south, church in the north. Goldberg was an art dealer in Indiana and she got the painting in a Swiss airport. Swiss does not apply because never entered stream of commerce. Indiana money, bank, citizen now holding possession, current place of mosaic 1. Jurisdiction - Decide foreign entitys citizenship by if that state would recognize them as a citizen 2. Choice of law choose choice of law analysis of the state in which you sit, then analyze which choice of law to apply by: most significant contacts a. Place where the conduct causing the injury occurred b. The residence or place of business of the parties c. The place where the relationship is centered 3. Who has title? Turkish issued a decree that okayed title of mosaic however U.S and everyone else does not recognize Turkish rule. Intl law recognizes importance of relic being in Cyprus. Peg did not buy in good faith b. Conflicts of Intl law and National law European Court of Human Rights of the Council of Europe created by nations in Europe to interpret and apply the fundamental European treaty governing intl human rights (U.S not a party) i. Soering v. The United Kingdom german intl killed gfs parents in Virginia. He then went to Europe. When there is a dispute btwn someone in the charter and not they go before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). U.S has extradition treaty with England. England doesnt want to send soering because it would be subjecting the person to cruel and unusual punishment (U.S looking to execute). Not enough to establish case against him in Germany. 1. Court has an inherent obligation not to extradite also extends to cases in which the fugitive would be faced in the receiving state by a real risk of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment 2. Determine based on nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, it physical and mental effects, sex age, and health of the victim 3. Violation of Art 3 despite not being a violation under U.S const 8 amend c. The influence of Transnational Law on National law i. Roper v. Simmons capital punishment of a juvenile under age of 18 (SCALIA majority) 1. Intl law should be instructive but not binding 2. Art 37 (public intl law)- treaty among states on Rights of Children 3. Custom - Look at practices of other states most do not allow execution of children

4. Dissent- OConnor never look to intl law- if foreign sources coincide with our domestic sources then use it 5. Foreign law instructive II. Transnational Legal Personalities most important is states; non-state parties have varying degrees in being subjects of intl law in their own right a. The State make intl law through their domestic laws, through their practices, through the treaties they enter, and intl organizations they create i. NORTH SEA BOUNDARY CASE b. Intl Organizations organization that is created by an intl agreement and has a membership consisting entirely or principally of states. Treaty gives it its power and existences and can exercise functions not expressly assigned to it under the treaty. Source of legal personality is domestic law- national laws of a state. (some intl org created by intl org) i. The Reparation Case the UN is an intl organization developed to regulate the intl economy by stabilizing currency, developing countries and developed countries lending money to poor countries and trade. Intl court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction over states by treaty or the consent of states by a compromise document. States can agree to compulsory jurisdiction. The ICJ can give advice without a case in controversy. Swedish natl works for UN as mediator and hard while working in Israel. (Sweden has not interest because he was not furthering their purpose). Secretary seeked compensation on behalf of the UN employees (nothing giving it that authority) 1. Intl organizations used to resolve issues. 2. Need a will separate from the states that created you. 3. Public unions created by sates to address uniformity 4. Intl org needs to be separate from states and have powers necessary to carry out the job of the UN (implied) 5. Some of the nature of the tasks could prevent home states from bringing action on behalf of person 6. States gave capacity to bring legal claims for the function of their business a. If UN does not have this power then no one will take job at UN, they need it for efficiency and make sure employees are protected and lets them know where to go with certainty b. Test essential to UN for performance of their Intl duties c. Persons i. Natural Persons- individuals can only seek the protection of intl law if their state sponsored their claim. Human beings were protectable and had certain limited rights (aliens, prisoners of war, civilians in war time, diplomatic agents) 1. Roberts v. United Mexican States Mexicans held him in jail longer than they were suppose to by their own laws. He was held in poor conditions. Mexican said that they were treating him like they treated their citizens. (earthen floors, straw roof, non-sanitary, 30-40 men in same room.) a. There is an Intl minimum standard of treatment for aliens (ordinary standards of civilizations)

b. An outrage, badfaith, to willful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of governmental action so far short intl standards that every reasonable and impartial man would readily recognize this insuffiency 2. The Nottebohm Case Lichtenstein v. Guatemala Guatemala seized his property and Lichenstein was going to represent him against Guatemala because he got citizenship from Lichenstein, which involved him denouncing is citizenship of Guatemala. a. Being a national is not enough for a state to take up a claim i. Need a genuine link to your country ii. Real and effective nationality iii. He had no intention of living there, originally from Germany and place of business from Guatemala ii. Juridical Persons various enterprises, including non-profit associations, religious organizations, and business organizations (corporations). Enjoy right to own property and make contracts. The owe legal duties to avoid negligent or tortuous conduct 1. Barcelona Traction Case 88% of shareholders from Belgium. Corporation chartered under Canadian law. Value of corporation depleted by Spains actions. Belgium would take up claim against Spain. a. Corporations are creatures of domestic laws and have a legal personality separate from shareholders; have rights to property and free speech b. Every corporation must be chartered or registered under the law of a particular nation c. Only the state the corporation is chartered in can take up a claim on behalf of the corporation (not state of shareholders) i. It is fair because the shareholders are not held responsible for harm done by corporation ii. It would be messy to have every state shareholders are a part of, asserting a claim 2. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. held corporation liable for an intentional tort because they are subject to international law. Talisman Energy promoting genocide in Sudan. Cannot sue Sudan govt because they will claim sovereignty a. U.S. courts may take jurisdiction over any civil action by alien for a tort in violation of the law of nation or a treaty of the US. b. Corporation held liable for substantive violation of intl law i. Obligated to respect basic human rights of individuals (right to life, freedom from slavery, free from torture) III. Sources of Transnational Law a. Sources of National Law law generated or recognized by a particular nationstate within their domestic legal system i. Sources of Law in the U.S

1. The Supremacy Clause- U.S. Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the US., the constitution of any state, laws of any state 2. Vertical Separation of Law- Federal Law vs State law U.S const is held over state law/const. a. State law- contracts, torts, property, criminal law b. Common Law became the law of the states and supplied the default rule for any particular legal question (not to conflict with const. provision) 3. Horizontal Separation a. U.S. Constitution supreme law of the land b. Law of the US i. Statutes federal legislation ii. Judicial Decisions power to interpret statutes; usually apply the common law of a particular state iii. Administrative regulations power given to administrative agencies to make rules governing a particular area of law that preempt inconsistent state law iv. Treaties only the ones made by the President with two-thirds of the U.S. Senate ii. Understanding Sources of National Law: Diversity of Legal Traditions 1. Private law that area of law in which the sole function of government is the recognition and enforcement of private rights. Includes civil and commericial codes. 2. Public law focuses on the effectuation of the public interest by state action (constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law) 3. Court Structure in civil law countries a. A case falling within the jurisdiction of one court generally is immune from jurisdiction in all others b. Judge asks the questions and generally no cross examination, opposing counsel just there to make sure record is accurate c. Parties submit written argument over evidence before trial to judge, who will then review and present it at the final hearing d. Judges chosen based on experience in the subject matter e. Hearsay admitted freely f. No cross examination counterpart in criminal proceedings g. Appeals on question of law only h. Doctrine developed by legal scholars is highly valued i. Legislation follows views of legal scholars j. Little mobility in the legal profession usually chosen before graduation k. Favor specialty courts to deal con, crim, admin, comm. Law 4. Case Studies Diversity of legal Traditions a. Maddux v. Donaldson (common law decision) car accident and then P hit again almost immediately. Acts not in concert but independent and tortuous acts of 2

tortfeasors. P must separate the injuries. Unfair for tortfeasor to escape liability because of the very complexity of the injury created by their wrong. i. Looked at precedent ii. Making analogies to other cases because not case is factually alike iii. Adversarial system b. S.E v. SCH (civil law) P was struck and thrown onto highway by a truck which he remained lying there and then ran over by another automobile. P entitled to money i. Applied code and does not rely on prior case does not have to find cases b. Sources of Public Intl law a treaty may be a formal (the process in negotiating, writing) or material source (specific subject matter legal obligations) i. Article 38 Sources no hierarchy 1. Treaties most extensive sources of intl law, most invoked and most relied upon a. Protocol useful when states want to revisit a treaty subject matter without disturbing or opening up the prior agreement b. Treaty binds parties to the contract and binds non-parties if it correctly sets down customary intl law which is binding on all states c. If broad can be considered generally applicable/ can possibly crystallize custom d. If problem with treaty you would look at the Vienna Convention of treaties for answers 2. Intl Custom most extensive sources of intl law, most invoked and relied upon; applicable to all states a. General practice of states i. Uniformity of practice ii. Constant state behavior b. acceptance of the general practice as law opinio juris i. requirement by law c. The North Sea Continental Shelf Case deciding property line; use equidistant lines. Denmark and the Netherlands claim as a matter of law because it was made by a treaty source of law through the convention. Germany says they are not bound because they were not a party to the treaty. Denmark claims customary, thus law. States took up equidistance principal but not out of obligation i. Delimitation done in equity 3. General principles of law recognized by civilized nations common among all states a. Collateral estoppel a party who argues in one forum cannot argue another forum that is parallel b. Validity of circumstantial evidence c. Attorney-client privilege

4. Judicial decisions May include intl and relevant domestic judicial decisions and may include arbitral decisions a. Subsidiary b. Interpret and apply the laws ii. Peremptory Norms norm of law which cannot be deviated from, no other law can legitimately contradict 1. Siderman v. Argentina argentine military officials tortured Siderman and took his property, suing for it back. Argentina tried to claim sovereign immunity. Cannot claim sovereign immunity with respect to violations against jus cogens (norm of intl law condemning official torture). a. A state waives its right to sovereign immunity when it violates jus cogens IV. Integrating International and National Law a. Theories of Monism and Dualism i. Monism apply intl law in a conflict btwn intl law and municipal law ii. Dualism intl law and municipal law are two entirely different systems of equal standing ; if in conflict intl law would not be cited in a U.S. court b. Practical approaches to the relationship btwn intl law and U.S. law in U.S. courts i. Treaties 1. Self-executing a monistic position meaning already the law of the land without the U.S. having to do anything a. Edwards v. Carter congress has the power to dispose of the canal. Property clause is intended to permit Congress to accomplish through legislation what can be accomplished by other means in the Const. Panama canal non-self executing i. Self executing treaty would trump domestic law but not the const b. Asakura v. City of Seattle seattle ordinance needed to be a US citizen to be a pawnbroker b/c he needed a license. Treaty btwn Japan and US said that the citizens of both would be treated the same as the citizens in the other country. The ordinance would be discrimination. i. Example of self executing 2. Non-self executing need for some sort of incorporation, adoption or implementation a. Sei Fujii v. State of California - whether a Japanese person, not a US citizen can have a right to own land. Non-self executing treaty in article 55 and 56 shall promote rather than shall enjoy i. to determine if self executing, look to the intent of the signatory 1. the framers must have intended to prescribe a rule that standing alone would be enforceable in the courts ii. non executing treaties do not invalidate domestic law iii. However in this case the 14th amendment did b/c it was prejudicial/ racially discriminatory

b. Missouri v. Holland Missouri trying to prevent a game warden of the US from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stating that States by the tenth amendment owned the birds. Does the treaty and statute become void as an interference with rights reserved to the States. Treaty deals with animals that migrate throughout the whole US i. Do not have to rely on states for a national issue and thus does not violate the 10th Amendment ii. Non self-executing but in full force by federal statute and constitutional 3. Executive agreements not approved by Senate, but entered into by the President by himself or approval of Congress a. US v. Belmont Russian company sent their money to NY for deposit with Belmont. There was a Russian revolution and soviets took the money and claims its. We refused to recognize communist government as a valid govt. Executive agreement to quash all debt owed. i. Executive agreement trumps state law; state law, policy, const become irrelevant b. Reid v. Covert Covert killed her husband who was in the armed forces. She however was not and wives of soldiers were denied trial by jury which is a constitutional right. Instead they were forced to trial before court martials. Executive agreement had been enforce that military would have exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by servicemen or their dependants i. Covert could not be constitutionally tried by military authorities ii. No agreement can be made that would be free from the restraints of the Const. 4. Later in time rule a. Breard v. Greene Breard, citizen of Paraguay was charged with rape and capital murder, scheduled for execution. Alleged violation of Vienna Convention to be allowed to meet with consulate. Failed to raise this issue in state court. The death penalty act provides no evidentiary hearing will be given if he failed to develop the factual basis of the claim in state court proceedings. i. Procedural rules of forum state govern the implementation of the treaty in that state ii. The one last in date will control the other when there are conflicting federal statutes. iii. Federal law trumps executive agreements 5. Treaty Interpretation a. Vienna Convention of the law of Treaties i. States how to interpret treaties when in different languages (authentic trumps) ii. Treaty obligations should be carried out in good faith iii. Look at treaty text to look for ordinary meaning

iv. To confirm the meaning you can look to extraneous supplemental materials b. Eastern Airlines v. Floyd- Needed to determine the meaning of other bodily injury where the airline took off there was a failing engine and the plane turned around and landed. Passengers claiming mental distress because of the accident (failing engine and preparation for ditching the plane). Psychic injury not included. i. Court looked to original/authentic French text from the Warsaw Convention (written to protect airlines) ii. Court looked to outside material such as a dictionary, legislation, and cases (all French) a. Must determine which treaty text is authentic c. Sale v. Haitian Refugee Centers determining the definition of return and deport. There was a Refugee convention to not deport or return an alien to a country where that aliens life or freedom is in jeopardy due to race religion, political, etc. The US had the boat turn around before it reached US soil (federal executive order). Duty of state to determine who is a political refugee then determine whether assertion is true. Political refugee has right to asylum (to remain in country) i. Interpreted French treaty although not needed because there was an authentic one in English a. Goes further into US legislative history to properly interpret treaty (would be going in reverse, treaty was not self-executing) b. Court could not overturn executive order or interpret the status of another state ii. Did not apply later in time rule d. U.S. v. Machain was a criminal defendant abducted from a nation that had an extradition treaty. Despite this, he can still be tried in federal court for violations of criminal law i. Court need not inquire about how the respondent got before it ii. Treaty btwn US and Mexico said nothing about refraining from forcible abductions and no consequences for such actions iii. Following Ker v. Illinois: Allowed forceful extradition c. Custom i. Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation - Copper industry in Peru polluting the airs of Peru. The P is stating that it is in violation of tort law because they have the right to life and health. This is strictly intrastate pollution. They sued in Southern District of New York. Strange because it was an Arizona corporation causing the pollution. The basis of their suit is Federal Law ATCA Alien Tort Claims Act. Have to prove that generally states recognize right to life and health. 1. Look to treaties, court decisions, statements by the government officials, protests criticizing other states for pollution

2. Not enough to show a custom to right of life or health against pollution and could not prove the general practices accepted as law (opinio juris) 3. Non self executing treaties do not show that the general practice is accepted as law d. Peremptory Norms and Jus Cogens non-derogatory norms that trump any inconsistent treaties or other international agreements i. Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani - stun belt to shock inmate into submission. Filed case saying that it violated Jus Cogens because it amounted to torture. Court stated that the U.S. never had case enacting jus cogenssince this is a U.S. citizen in U.S. courts this is not dealing with International Law. Ct stated the inmate would be protected under other remedies therefore we do not have to recognize Jus Cogens. 1. If other remedies available under US law, do not need to invoke Jus Cogens. ii. Buell v. Mitchell charged with kidnapped and murder. Received the death penalty. Has death penalty reached jus cogens norm that would call for a reversal of the death sentence. 1. Intl law is one that has been accepted as such by the intl community of states a. In form of customary law b. By intl agreement; or c. By derivation from general principles common to the 2. Intl law not binding on the US in regards V. Resolving Conflicts Between National Laws a. The traditional approach: :Lex Loci and Vested rights i. Slater v. Mexican Natl Railroad US citizen went down to fix train and got run over on Mexican Natl RR. It was brought in Northern District of Texas (diversity). Which tort Law? Texas tort law because of the damages it would be a lump sum and Mexican law would have survivors get only periodic payments that was subject to condition in the future. The court would determine what you need. 1. Three test for what law to apply a. Lex fori (law of the forum) b. Lex loci (law of the place) where rights vest, used because it is certain and serves doctrine of vested rights within state/territory c. Government interest test used today; functions best with comity 2. Court determined Mexican law would apply lex loci (must make sure there is comity/reciprocal treatment 3. P should not be able to rely on foreign law for a cause of action and the D not be able to use the foreign law to limit liability b. The Modern Approach: Governmental Interests i. Governmental Interests Center of Gravity and Quality of Contacts (possibility Comparative Interests test that measures amount of harm to each country) 1. Babcock v. Johnson NY citizens driving a NY car with NY ins. Accident happened in Canada, only gone for 2 days. Canadian law says that passengers cannot sue the drivers for accidents.

a. Look at under lying policy to determine which law should apply (ins protection issue) b. Center of gravity place w/ most contacts within the parties c. The local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties determines their rights and liabilities in tort d. If it was only about traffic laws then center of gravity would shift to Canada ii. Government Interest and Conflicts of Public Policy 1. DAgostino v. Johnson & Johnson - Employee discovers bribes being done in Switzerland. Blows whistle and gets fired. Which laws should be applied. Court determined NJ law applied despite everything swiss, bribe in swiss, K a swiss contract--- it does not matter a number a contacts but the quality. It is so heavy policywise. They advised this case involved federal law of bribing public officials. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was being violated. The court held that the interests of New Jersey in preventing violation of governmental policies that could have an indirect effect on the domestic market for pharmaceutical products and the health and welfare of its citizens were greater than the interest of Switzerland in maintaining Swiss at-will employment relationships. a. The quality of contacts is important b. Is there a strong governmental policy have a direct effect on its citizens was greater than Swiss interest in at-will employment 2. McGhee v. Arabian American Oil Co. Delaware incorporation company in the middle east, largest operation in Saudi Arabia. McGhee rented video tapes on the compound which they were prohibited. Deciding which law Saudi or US to apply a. US law should apply b/c the compound was given certain privileges of not being subjected to Saudi law so if Saudi had tolerance there, they should have it now b. Cali Gov. Interest Test: i. Rule Conflict ii. True Conflict of Interest iii. Comparative Impairment c. Unique contacts must be considered, no true conflict of laws, location and citizenship of parties is strong indication of center of gravity d. The harm caused was really on the compound it did not enter and affect western ideals, only Saudi law can apply, US opted out of litigation in this type of case c. Conflicts of Law and National Foreign Policy i. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino - U.S. reduced sugar quota; Cuba Nationalized and made into Cuba state properties American companies which included CAV. The taking must be for a public purpose and taking cannot be discriminatory. Must be prompt, adequate and effective compensation and CAV got nothing.

1. Filed suit in NY. If it was under lex loci then we would look to the law of Cuba. Under GovInt Test: Cuban sugar, banks, decree versus U.S. interest in protecting their citizen and company dealings in a foreign country. 2. Court does not want to interfere with Execs foreign policy principles 3. Not decided on conflict of laws analysis but on the Act of State Doctrine a. Does not apply if intl law is violated (comity) b. Exec can stop application c. Foreign govt cannot invoke in US courts if P d. New Challenges for Conflict of Laws i. LICRA v. Yahoo - Yahoo was sued by two organizations of France. Yahoo had auctions online. In the auction were Nazi memorialbilia, which was against the laws of France because of what happened during WWII. This was available to accessors from France. Activity from yahoo most likely done from California. First Yahoo argued no jurisdictions. Which France says the harm was in France. Yahoo then says they cannot control those who click on the link. There was a way to prevent Italian users from seeing France ads. So there must be a way to block French users. Yahoo Guilty. 1. There is a case in controversy because Yahoo is under a ruling of French law. Yahoo want to declare what the law is. Was it constitutional for foreign nations to regulate speech by U.S citizens. Unconstitutional because it was speech taken place in the U.S. in California. If you wanted to comply with everyone and the U.S. you would create a restrictive domestic law. On appeal, the court reversed saying there would be personal jurisdiction but case is not ripe. 2. Case will be ripe with French try to enforce judgment 3. Notice- if foreign law, notice must be given e. Proving Foreign Law i. Determining Foreign Law-Rules 1. If you will use foreign law must give notice; written and reasonable 2. The court in determining foreign law may consider any relevant material and source, including testimony. Ruling will be as a matter of law ii. Determining Foreign Law Illustrations courts given broad discretion in their investigation of foreign laws 1. Special Masters- appointed to apply foreign law to the case before the court a. Henry v. Bahama Cruise Lines Panama cruise ship registered in Panama, flying a Panamanian flag. Henry suing for wages. Panama labor law applied i. Law of the flag applies to ships sailing on high seas until it docks 2. Expert Witnesses a. US v. Schultz Egyptian artifacts stolen, but have to look at Egyptian law to know if they qualify as stolen. Court

relied on prosecutions witnesses even though the law professor was less bias. 3. Any relevant material or source- that judges can gather themselves a. Curley v. AMR Corp - Conflict between U.S. and Mexican laws. Thought he might have had marijuana on board the plane. Governmental interest test shows that mexico has the most interest. Occurred in mexico, with Mexican officials and citizens. Court applies NY law. i. They looked at Mexican law and determined insufficient and no true conflict. ii. Looked at law review, criminal code, briefing, treaties, affidavit of Mexican lawyer, Mexican civil code. iii. On appeal it was reversed and should be determined under Mexican law. Case was sent back. f. Enforcement of Transnation Judgments i. Foreign Judgments private intl law 1. Somportex Limited v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp - P brought breach of K against D in U.K courts. Case was not defended by D. There was a default judgment against D. But they have to get judgment enforced thus go to U.S. to seek enforcement of judgment in U.S. courts. a. Comity each court will give due regard for another countries judgment but not obligatory. i. Another nations decisions should be given full effect unless there is a special reason not to such as detrimental to the nation about to enforce it. (fraud, prejudice) ii. Default judgment is as conclusive a judgment as you can get. Deemed irrelevant the default nature of the judgment as long as the party the judgment was against was given ample opportunity to contest such judgment. iii. Should be enforced as long as it does not endangers public health, morals, or wealth we will recognize foreign nations different remedies. ii. Private Arbitration - Demands of comity are not as clear in arbitration because its a private matter. Two parties come together to get rid of a dispute among themselves. What respect should be given to a sovereign states court and a private decision. There is a NY convention on arbitration awards. 1. Karaha Bodas Co. v. Pertamina - Arbitration clause where each side picks one and those two arbitrators will pick a third. Need to place in whose laws are going to apply (substantive and procedural). Indonesia substantive law applied(because project took place in Indonesia) and Switzerland procedural law applied (site of the proceedings). Where the arbitration would take place. Procedures for arbitration, time frames, and costs (or have escrow account). Evidence standards, identify arbitrators

a. Judgment sought in all places where there was assets from Pertamina b. If you are a state with primary jurisdiction you have the power to enforce the arbitration as well as overturn it if you are a place where the deal took place c. Secondary courts can only refuse to enforce if one party prevented from presenting a case, one side incapacitated, party seeking enforcement failed to meet burden of proof. You must have extraordinary circumstances to not have enforcement iii. Enforcing International Tribunal Judgments 1. United States a. Sanchez Llamas v. Oregon ICJ held that US violated Article 36 by failing to name many Mexicans their right to a consulate. i. Art 36 is self-executing because it has shall however it subcumbs to the procedural laws of the state therefore they waived their rights VI. Allocation of Transnational Jurisdiction a. Legal Bases of National jurisdiction i. The Territorial Principle - state may claim jurisdiction over person and events inside its territory. 1. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co - UFCo. took over the plantation of the company that was trying to compete with them. Acts of a private party in a foreign country. These acts are illegal in the U.S. because it is stifling competition. The U.S. should care because the U.S. will only get bananas from one person and that person would charge the highest price possible (Sherman Anti-Trust Act). a. Court decided there was no jurisdiction because they decided that Congress did not intend for the laws to go outside its territory unless it says otherwise. b. All laws passed by congress are meant to apply within its territory. ii. Effects Doctrine of the Territorial principle state may have a basis to claim jurisdiction over persons and events outside a states territory provided effects are felt inside a states territory. Need a substantial effect or a deleterious effect 1. United States v. Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) - The Alliance made swiss corporation that conspired to not compete among themselves, set prices and set quotas on how many to produce a year, all took place outside the U.S.. The prices in the U.S. would go up. Alcoa was asked to join the alliance and the U.S. stated that this would violate the Sherman Act. He used the effects doctrine to allow control over Alcoa. a. In applying 9-11 substantial effects in U.S. ; 2. EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. - A U.S. citizen goes to work for an American company in Saudi Arabia and he gets fired. He files a claim with the EEOC because he was fired on account of race religion, and national origin. Does title VII apply to events

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

b. The i.

outside the U.S, The court determined that congress did not intend it to apply to outside the U.S. a. The court presumed that when congress passes a law that its only meant to apply inside the U.S. and not outside. Nationality Principle - a state may legitimately claim jurisdiction on the basis of the nationality principle where a person is a citizen of that state whether the person is in that states territory or abroad in another states territory. 1. Tomoya Kawakita v. United States - Was convicted of treason and the question was, Was he a U.S. citizen at the time of the act? Yes he was. He was born a U.S. citizen, claimed during the war it was impossible for him to come to the U.S., he was over there just for school. His parents were Japanese, he used japenese passport when going to china, he said he had no loyalty to the U.S., he also felt he was under financial duress. He claimed he was not a U.S. citizen at that time. The court stated that he was still a U.S. citizen and had not yet lost it and no matter where u are or the other nationalities you hold you are still a U.S. citizen and your allegiance is to the U.S. a. If you have competing citizenships, which should apply? Passive Personality principle - a state may assert jurisdiction over persons and events outside a states territory on the basis its citizen was harmed 1. U.S. v. Roberts sexual assault on Celebration, the citizen harmed was from the U.S. although Celebration is a Protective principle a state can assert jurisdiction over person and events outside a states territory where the security of the state is at stake or some essential govt function is involved 1. United States v. Yousef - Consistent with protective principle because Yousef set off these bombs on American Airlines and it involved a government function. The blowing up of an Airline would cause a panic and purpose of Government is to promote peace. a. What about the putting into American economy the intl drug trade, can we use the protective principle that can be use to monitor drug cartel no even though it takes a great deal of govt money to enforce. Universality principle all states have jurisdiction over certain crimes wherever they occur that are especially heinous. Such crimes are thought to threaten, by their nature, the good order of the intl community. 1. United States v. Yunis - Charged with hijacking a Jordanian plane in Lebanon. Two American citizens one board a. Which states ought to use their jurisdiction? b. Test of reasonableness- as long as claim to jurisdiction is reasonable then u can assert it. Each state is to determine if their claim is reasonable Resolution of Competing Claims to Jurisdiction Timberlane Lumber v. Bank of America - Antitrust suit, the assertion of jurisdiction would be reasonable after weighing the degree of conflict with foreign law or policy, the nationality or allegiance of the parties,

and the locations or principal places of businesses or corp, the extent to which enforcement by either state can be expected to achieve compliance, the relative significance of effects on the U.S. as compared with those elsewhere, the extent to which there is which there is explicit purpose to harm or affect with those elsewhere, the extent to which there is explicit purpose to har or affect American commerce, the foreseeability of such effect, and the relative importance to violations charged of conduct within the U.S. as compared with conduct abroad 1. Doctrine of sovereign equality the one that most preserves sovereign equality 2. Principle of non intervention - The one that does not go to intervene into another state 3. Principle of territorial integrity refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. ii. Hartford Fire Ins Co. v. California - Insures insurance companies. UK does not forbid them from refusing but U.S. says not ok to refuse. No true conflict because you can conform to both laws. 1. Prescriptive JD: crt must have subj. jd 2. Dissent reasonableness shows that it would unreasonable to apply American law because the acts were in London, the insurers are in London, the refusers were british, this is vital to british economy.