CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

THE ATTITUDE OF THE UNITED STATES TOWARD INTERNATIONAL LAW Article III of the Constitution makes specific references to the Supreme Court’s responsibilities with respect to international law. The court’s jurisdiction includes cases involving a foreign ambassador, controversies in which foreign states or foreign citizens are parties, and cases involving conflicts between federal law and international law, and disputes involving admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 12 Historically the Supreme Court has been a strong advocate of international law. The court issued several important rulings in its early years that strengthened international law in the United States. 13 In the Pacquete Habana case, the court upheld the right of neutral vessels to engage in fishing without being seized by other nations. 14 The court forced the United States Government to release the crew of the Cuban fishing vessel and to pay compensation to its owners. In the Chinese Exclusion case the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of sovereignty over a state’s territory with respect to immigration, which it recognized as a prerogative of the sovereign. 15 In BancoNacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, the Supreme Court invoked the Act of State Doctrine to refuse passing judgment on the legality of Cuba’s nationalization decree. 16 The court is usually careful when venturing into foreign affairs matters, an area it considers politically sensitive and reserved for the two political branches. The court does not want to be accused of meddling in the nation’s foreign policy. The court tends to rely on the Executive Branch for treaty interpretation and to give deference to the president in matters of international law. The court also avoids rendering decisions that conflict with the foreign policy priorities of the administration. During the Cold War the Supreme Court avoided adjudicating controversial international legal issues. In situations where international law conflicts with domestic law, the court will interpret the law in a manner consistent with U.S. international legal obligations. 17 In recent years the court has rendered several controversial decisions on human rights and international humanitarian law issues that contradicted the policies of the executive branch. These decisions demonstrate the court’s willingness to adjudicate difficult cases and render decisions that are not politically popular. In Roper v. Simmons the court struck down the death penalty against minors who committed capital murder before they were 18 years old. The court cited global trends in rendering its decision. 18 In Atkins v. Virginia the court voided the death penalty 12 See Article 3, sec. 2. 13 For a Comprehensive Review of the Role of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Interpretation and Enforcement of International Law, see David L. Sloss, et al ., eds. International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court (2011). 14 175 U.S. 677 (1900). 15 See Chae Chan Ping v. United States , 130 U.S. 581 S. Ct. (1889). 16 376 U.S. 398, 416 (1964). 17 See Charming Betsy Canon ( Murray v. Charming Betsy , 6 U.S. 64 (1804); United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 695 F. Supp. 1456, 1464 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Jeffrey L. Shore, The PLO Observer Mission Dispute: An Argument for U.S. Compliance with the U.N. Headquarters Agreement, 12 Fordham I. L. J. 781, 751 (1988). 18 See, e.g. Roper v. Simmons , 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005).