Chapter 2

International Law and Organizations

 

I. Public International Law

          The Paquette Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)

          Facts: During Spanish American War, U.S. seized Spanish flag fishing vessels belonging to a Spanish citizen living in Cuba.  U.S. claimed vessels as prizes of war.  Owner sued, but lower courts approved seizure during time of war.

          Issue: Does international law allow seizure of fishing vessels during war?

          Holding: No. Traditionally, international law and norms forbid seizing civilian fishing ships as prizes.

          Reasoning: Long history supports the rule, including actions by previous U.S. governments.  Kind of a common law approach to international obligations.

 

          A. Law of Treaties

          B. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

                   1. Pacta sunt servanda

                   2. Jus cogens

          C. Impact of Treaties on Business

          U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)

          Facts: D was resident and citizen of Mexico. U.S. alleged that he was involved with drugs and had tortured and murdered people. DEA arranged to have him abducted in Mexico and brought to U.S. Mexico protested that this violated their sovereignty and U.S. obligations under extradition treaty.

          Issue: Can D challenge jurisdiction based on violation of extradition treaty?

          Holding: No. Extradition treaty is not exclusive, and therefore U.S. acted legally.

          Reasoning: History of treaty is that it is not exclusive way of catching person.

          Note: Stevens’ dissent finds this a shocking disregard for international norms.

          Question: Would U.S. State department take this position the other way around? Does U.S. military force justify this (i.e. Mexico can’t do anything about it)?

          D. International Court of Justice

                   1. Problems of Jurisdiction

          Liechtenstein v. Guatemala (Nottebohm Case), 1955 ICJ Rep. 4 (1955)

          Facts: Nottebohm born in Germany.  He moved to Guatemala in 1905, and lived there until 1943 except for business trips to Liechtenstein (where his brother lived). In 1939, he applied for Liechtenstein citizenship and asked for waiver of 3 year requirement. Liechtenstein agreed and granted him citizenship and passport. He then returned to Guatemala.

          In 1943, Guatemala entered the war on the Allied side. They seized Nottebohm as a German national and confiscated his property. They released him in 1946, but did not return his property.

          Liechtenstein filed a “memorial” complaining that Nottebohm had his rights violated under international law.

          Issue: Must Guatemala recognize the grant of citizenship?

          Holding: No. International law looks at ties and responsibilities to a country. Nottebohm appears to have sought to change his nationality to a neutral country to advance his own interests.  He did not live in Liechtenstein and did not join its culture and traditions. Guatemala could ignore the formal documentation.

                   2. Developments since the Nicaragua Case

 

II. Role of the UN in the Public International Law

          A. General Assembly and Security Council

                   1. UN Security Council and Iraq

          B. International Law and the World of Business

 

III. Private International Law

          A. Comparison of National Legal Systems

          B. Common and Civil Law

          C. Socialist Law

          D. Islamic Law

          E. Comparative Law

          Matusevitch v. Telnikoff, 877 F.Supp 1 (DDC 1995)

          Facts: M and T are both Russian emigrants. T wrote an editorial for a London newspaper criticizing BBC for hiring Russian “minorities.” In Russian, this apparently refers to Jews. M sued T for libel in London and got judgment for $416k.

          M asked federal court in U.S. to convert this to a U.S. judgment. T asked U.S. court to disregard because it violates Constitution.

Issue: Should U.S. court enforce British libel judgment that likely would have violated the Constitution if brought in the U.S.?
          Holding: The British judgment would likely have violated T’s rights under U.S. law, and therefore cannot enforce the judgment.

          F. Foreign Investment Codes

 

IV. International Organizations

          A. Organizations Affiliated with UN

          B. Bretton  Woods Institutions

          C. IMF and World Bank

          D. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

          E. GATT and WTO

          F. OECD

          G. International Chamber of Commerce

          H. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

          I. Other Organizations

 

V. Human Rights, Ethics and Business Response

          A. Cultural and Ethical Environment