Cases Flashcards
Kindler v. Canada
US citizen flees to Canada and would get the death penalty if extradited
Even though Canada doesn’t have the death penalty, that does not mean they won’t extradite.
Takeaways
1) No global stance on the death penalty
2) Safe haven argument (Canada doesn’t want to become a safe haven for criminals facing death elsewhere)
3) Deference to exec branch for treaties
US v. Burns
Canadian citizens flee to Canada and would get death penalty if extradited
Can’t extradite without assurances of no death penalty (unless extraordinary circumstances)
rejects safe haven argument
Soering v. UK
S committed murders in US. He is in prison in UK, but is a German citizen. Death penalty if extradited to US.
Article 3 of ECHR might be grounds not to extradite if there is evidence that party being extradited will face ill-treatment in the requesting country
He faces a real risk of death penalty if extradited to the US, so the extradition would be in violation of Article 3 of ECHR –> (the problem is not the death penalty itself, but the death row phenomenon)
Roper v. Simmons
Simmons committed murder at 17 and was sentenced to death
Death penalty for minors is unconstitutional – national consensus against it and international community against it. Court also looked at social science data.
Roper Test
foreign and int’l law can confirm the existence of a national consensus.
Is there a national consensus?
Yes -> Use non-binding int’l law to confirm the national consensus.
No -> No confirmatory strength.
Roper v. Simmons Scalia Dissent
US should not look to other countries when interpreting its own Constitution. Keep soft intl law out of constitutional interpretation.
(1) The Senate reservation to Article 37 of the UN Convention on Rights of Child is black letter international law, so we should adhere to it. This indicates national consensus that juvenile DP should be allowed.
(2) Don’t cherry pick from UK. If we want to be like them, then we need to get rid of the role of jury, church & state, abortion
Abbott v. Abbott
Treaty interpretation -
1) Plain meaning of treaty
2) Congruent with overall goals of treaty
3) Exec branch interpretation
4) Other countries’ interpretation (esp. Chile)
5) Publicists and experts
The Paquette Habana
Constitutional supremacy clause gives customary int’l law binding strength in domestic law
Medellin v. Texas
Requiring a treaty to be self-executing makes ratification in the US more difficult.
Although the ICJ decision creates international obligation, it does not constitute binding federal law that preempts state administration of justice within its state (police power)
The Island of the Palmas Case
- US/Netherlands claim island
- us claims cession from spain (contracts)
- netherlands claims possession and continuous
- netherlands wins case
Nottebohm Case
N is german national and naturalized in Lichtenstein and lives and conducts business in guatemala.
ct says N does not have citizenship with L because he does not have a long-standing and close connection with the state
Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company
BTLP incorporated in Canada, operates in spain, belgian national shareholders
nationality of company is place of incorporation
Kristic
ICTY 2004
genocide of military aged bosnian muslim men
it is enough to be convicted of genocide if the people targeted comprise a substantial part of the group.
US v Belfast (Chuckie Taylor)
US Ct of Appeals 11th Cir
Rational basis between domestic law and international treaty - rejection of mirror image rule
international treaty contains a floor not a concrete definition
APAZO v. President of South Africa
South African Constitutional Court 1996
SA amnesty for people who committed political crime
customary international law does not require prosecution and punishment
since this was decided before ICC was established, the outcome would probably be different today
Almog v. Arab Bank
US District Ct 2007
national bank of jordan used to pay suicide bombers families
suicide bombers violate customary international law. variations on definitions don’t matter because common understanding of terrorism
Morrison v. National Bank of Australia
SCOTUS 2010
P is australian citizen, alleging australian bank violated US law
congress can declare that a statute has international reach, otherwise presumption against extraterritorialism
Transaction test - 1) purchase or sale in made in the US OR 2) corporation is listed on US stock exchange
must “touch and concern” the united states
Bond v. US
SCOTUS 2014
Chemical weapons treaty
ct does statutory interpretation on treaty, decides that the treaty does not apply
Daimler v. Bauman
SCOTUS 2014
Argentinian Ps against Daimler subsidiary
claim by foreign plaintiffs against foreign defendant concerning events that happen outside the US UNLESS the company has substantial and continuous systemic contact
RJR Nabisco v. European Community
SCOTUS 2016
EC brings claim alleging violation of RICO
presumption against extraterritorial reach, P did not have domestic injury
need to show predicate offense to use RICO
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
SCOTUS 2013
ATS - subject matter must touch the US with sufficient force to oust the presumption against extraterritoriality
Jesner v. Arab Bank
SCOTUS 2018
ATS only reaches individuals, not corporations
Samantar v. Yousuf
SCOTUS 2010
Foreign soverign immunities act does not apply to individuals
footnote 14 - can still be immune outside of FSIA
Nestle Case
SCOTUS 2021
general corporate activity is not sufficient to give domestic courts jurisdiction
claims went beyond coverage of ATS
Obb v. Sachs
SCOTUS 2015
train injury case in Austria
Exception to FSIA - commercial activity
there has to be a connection between the commercial act in the US and the injury
Germany v. Philip
SCOTUS 2021
property taking/expropriation exception to FSIA apply when taking is not domestic
since this is a domestic taking, FSIA protects germany
Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson
SCOTUS 2016
US seizes Iranian assets through act of congress, P says this violates separation of powers
Ct says this does not violate separation of powers because very specific, strong judicial restraint in international law
Animal Science v. Hebei Pharma
SCOTUS 2017
FRCP 44.1 says that foreign govts interpretation of its own domestic laws is not binding on US courts
Manco v Bezdikian
Cal Ct App 2013
to be an enforceable foreign judgement, must be conclusive. Conclusive requires judgement be rendered by impartial judicial process and with due process
Texaco v. Libya
International Arbitral Tribunal 1977
Nationalization of Texaco in Libya without compensation
Expropriation cannot happen without compensation
determining what UN resolutions are applicable - look to support from similar states
Methanex v. US
NAFTA Arbitrational Tribunal
California bans MTBD which in effect bans methanol, ethanol produced by california companies are like/substitute products
No violation of NAFTA ch 11 - not egregious enough to violate minimum treatment, methanex took risk by entering industry
US Shrimp/Turtle
WTO Appellate Body
Endangered species act requires Turtle Excluder Devices for shrimp fishing
turtles are an exhaustible resource under environmental side agreement
US violates part of GATT - treated some countries better than others through side deals, used disguised restriction
