8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

1/16

LOTUS CASE

France vs. Turkey

A French ship (the S.S. Lotus), collided with a Turkish ship in

international waters, killing some Turkish sailors. The French ship then

docked in Turkey.

 Turkey attempted to try the French ofcer in charge o the Lotus

or negligence. They ound him guilty and sentenced him to ! days in

 "ail. France went to the #ermanent $ourt o %nternational &ustice (#.$.%.&.)

and argued that Turkey did not ha'e "urisdiction to try the French

ofcers, ecause they were on a French oat in international waters at

the time o the accident. Turkey argued that since their nationals were

killed, they had "urisdiction to try those responsile or the deaths.

France argued that as a matter o customary international law, the ag

o the 'essel (in this case France) has e*clusi'e "urisdiction. The #$%& ound that Turkey did ha'e the right to try the French

sailors. The #$%& asically ound that since the two ships were in'ol'ed

in the same accident, that oth countries had concurrent "urisdiction

o'er the accident. The #$%& ound that customary international law

ga'e France "urisdiction, ut it didn+t gi'e them e*clusi'e "urisdiction.

-nder international law, e'erything that isn+t prohiited is permitted.

 This case led to the Lotus #rinciple (aka the Lotus Approach),

which says that so'ereign states may act in any way they wish so long

as they do not contra'ene an e*plicit prohiition.

 The Lotus #rinciple was later o'erruled y the /0 1igh Seas

$on'ention. Article () says that only the ag State or the State o 

which the alleged o2ender was a national has "urisdiction o'er sailors

regarding incidents occurring in high seas.

TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION

US vs. Canada

Facts3

 The Trail Smelter located in 4ritish $olumia since /!5, was owned

and operated y a $anadian corporation. The resultant e2ect o rom

the sulur dio*ide rom Trail Smelter resulted in the damage o the

state o 6ashington etween /70 and /89. This led to the -nited

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

2/16

States (#) :ling a suit against the $anada (;) with an in"unction against

urther air pollution y Trail Smelter.

%ssue3

%s it the responsiility o the State to protect other states against

harmul acts y indi'iduals rom within its "urisdiction at all times<

1eld3

 =es. %t is the responsiility o the State to protect other states against

harmul acts y indi'iduals rom within its "urisdiction at all times. >o

state has the right to use or permit the use o the territory in a manner

as to cause in"ury y umes in or to the territory o another or the

properties or persons therein as stipulated under the -nited States (#)

laws and the principles o international law.

4y looking at the acts contained in this case, the aritration heldthat $anada (;) is responsile in international law or the conduct o 

the Trail Smelter $ompany. 1ence, the onus lies on the $anadian

go'ernment (;) to see to it that Trail Smelter?s conduct should e in

line with the oligations o $anada (;) as it has een con:rmed y

%nternational law. The Trail Smelter $ompany will thereore e re@uired

to pre'ent causing any damage through umes as long as the present

conditions o air pollution e*ist in 6ashington.

So, in pursuance o the Article %%% o the con'ention e*isting

etween the two nations, the indemnity or damages should e

determined y oth go'ernments.

Finally, a regime or measure o control shall e applied to the

operations o the smelter since it is proale in the opinion o the

triunal that damage may occur in the uture rom the operations o 

the smelter unless they are curtailed.

Blackmer vs. US

Facts34lackmer (;), a -.S. (#) citien who was residing in France, was ser'ed

supoenas to appear in court as a witness in a criminal trial in the -.S.

$ontempt proceedings were initiated against 4lackmer (;) when he

ailed to respond to the supoenas and he was ound guilty and :ned.

4lackmer (;) appealed on the ground that the ederal statute was

unconstitutional.

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

3/16

%ssue3

Bust there e due process or the e*ercise o "udicial "urisdiction in

personam<

1eld3

 =es. There must e due process or the e*ercise o "udicial "urisdiction

in personam. The court may ad"udge the witness guilty o contempt i 

the witness ails to comply with the court order. $ongress acted

pursuant to its authority in enacting the statute and it could prescrie

a penalty to enorce it.

$hie &ustice 1ughes, in deli'ering the opinion o the $ourt, stated

CnDor can it e douted that the -nited States possesses the power

inherent in so'ereignty to re@uire the return to this country o a citien,

resident elsewhere, whene'er the pulic interest re@uires it, and to

penalie him in case o reusal. Also, CiDt is also eyond contro'ersy

that one o the duties which the citien owes to his go'ernment is to

support the administration o "ustice y attending its courts and gi'ing

his testimony whene'er he is properly summoned.

NOTTEBOHM CASE

Liec!iens!ein vs. "ua!emala

Facts3

>otteohm (#), a Eerman y irth, li'ed in Euatemala (;) or 8 years,

retaining his Eerman citienship and amily and usiness ties with it.

1e howe'er applied or Liechtenstein (#) citienship a month ater the

outreak o 6orld 6ar %%. >otteohm (#) had no ties with Liechtenstein

ut intended to remain in Euatemala. The naturaliation application

was appro'ed y Liechtenstein. Ater this appro'al, >otteohm (#)

tra'elled to Liechtenstein and upon his return to Euatemala (;), hewas reused entry ecause he was deemed to e a Eerman citien. 1is

Liechtenstein citienship was not honored. Liechtenstein (#) therey

:led a suit eore the %nternational $ourt to compel Euatemala (;) to

recognie him as one o its national. Euatemala (;) challenged the

'alidity o >otteohm?s (#) citienship, the right o Liechtenstein (#) to

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

4/16

ring the action and alleged its elie that >otteohm (#) remained a

Eerman national.

%ssue3

Bust nationality e disregarded y other states where it is clear that it

was a mere de'ice since the nationality conerred on a party is

normally the concerns o that nation<

1eld3

>G. issues relating to citienship are solely the concern o the granting

nation. This is the general rule. 4ut it does not mean that other states

will automatically accept the conerring state?s designation unless it

has acted in conormity with the general aim o orging a genuine ond

etween it and its national aim. %n this case, there was no relationship

etween Liechtenstein (#) and >otteohm (#). The change o nationality was merely a suteruge mandated y the war. -nder this

circumstance, Euatemala (;) was not orced to recognie it.

ME#OFF vs. $IRECTOR OF %RISONS

Facts3

4oris Be"o2, a Hussian, was captured as a &apanese spy y the

-S Army $ounter %ntelligence $orps on Barch , /. 1e was turned

o'er to the #hil $ommonwealth Eo'ernment or appropriate

disposition. 1is case was decided on y the 4oard o $ommissioners o 

%mmigration who declared him as an illegal alien. The 4oard ordered

his immediate deportation. %n the meantime, he was placed in prison

awaiting the ship that will take him ack home to Hussia. Two Hussian

oats ha'e een re@uested to ring him ack to Hussia ut the

masters reused as they had no authority to do so.

 Two years passed and Be"o2 remained under detention awaiting

the ship that will take him home. This case is a petition or haeas

corpus. 1owe'er, the respondent held that the Be"o2 should stay in

temporary detention, as it is a necessary step in the process o e*clusion or e*pulsion o undesirale aliens. %t urther states that is has

the right to do so or a reasonale length o time.

%ssue3

6hether or not Be"o2 should e released rom prison awaiting his

deportation.

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

5/16

Huling3

 The Supreme $ourt decided that Be"o2 e released rom custody ut

e placed under reasonale sur'eillance o the immigration authorities

to insure that he keep peace and e a'ailale when the Eo'ernment is

ready to deport him. %n the doctrine o incorporation, the #hilippines in

its constitution adopts the generally accepted principles o 

international law as part o the law o >ations. Also, the #hilippines has

 "oined the -nited >ations in its Hesolution entitled I-ni'ersal

;eclaration o 1uman HightsJ in proclaiming that lie and lierty and all

other undamental rights shall e applied to all human eings.

FILARTI"A vs. %ENA&IRALA

 The suit was rought y an alien residing in the -nited States against aormer ofcial o #araguay then 'isiting the -nited States. The

complaint alleged torture o the plainti2+s rother leading to his death.

 The court o appeals ruled that delierate torture perpetrated y a

person in'ested with ofcial authority was a 'iolation o customary law

supporting the "urisdiction o the district courts o'er a ci'il action y

an alien or a tort only, committed in 'iolation o the law o nations.

 The court urther declared that indeed, or purposes o ci'il liaility,

the torturer has ecome like the pirate and sla'e trader eore

him hostis humani generis, an enemy o all mankind. The court ound

that torture perpetrated y a person in'ested with ofcial authority

'iolates uni'ersally accepted human rights norms, regardless o the

nationality o the parties. 6hene'er an alleged torturer is ound and

ser'ed with process y an alien within -S territory, 7 -.S.$. K 80!

applies and pro'ides ederal "urisdiction.

ATTORNE' "ENERAL OF ISRAEL vs. EICHMANN

 The Appellant, Adol ichmann, was an Austrian y irth who

'olunteered to work or the Security Ser'ice (S;) in 4erlin. 1e rosethrough the ranks and e'entually occupied the position o 1ead o 

Section (Heerant) or &ewish A2airs charged with all matters related to

the implementation o the Final Solution to the &ewish Muestion. %n this

capacity, he o'ersaw the transport and deportation o &ewish persons,

set up and personally ran an operations center in 1ungary in order to

implement the Final Solution there, organied the transer o money

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

6/16

rom e'acuated &ews to the State and was responsile or the

administration o the camps at Terein and 4ergenN4elsen.

1e was captured y %sraeli Security Forces in Argentina and handed

o'er to the ;istrict $ourt o &erusalem to stand trial or war crimes,

crimes against humanity and crimes against the &ewish people. 1e was

con'icted o all 0 counts and sentenced to death y the ;istrict $ourt

o &erusalem. 1is appeal was re"ected y the Supreme $ourt o %srael

and he was e*ecuted y hanging a ew minutes eore midnight on 8

Bay /57.

 There is no rule o general customary international law, which prohiits

the enactment o retroacti'e penal legislation. Furthermore, the

argument that to punish an indi'idual or conduct which was not yet

criminal at the time o its commission would e unethical loses its orcein ace o the odious crimes committed y the Appellant. The

Appellant?s contention that the Law o /0! is thereore contrary to the

principle o nonNretroacti'ity and cannot thereore apply to the

Appellant is re"ected.

 There is no rule o general customary international law that the

principle o territorial so'ereignty prohiits the enactment o a criminal

law applicale to e*traNterritorial crimes committed y a oreign

national. The Appellant?s second ground o appeal must also e

re"ected.

 These :ndings are reinorced y positi'e international law3 the crimes

or which the Appellant was con'icted were international crimes under

international law entailing indi'idual criminal responsiility at the time

that they were committed, and their uni'ersal character is such that

each State is 'ested with the power to try and punish anyone who

assisted in their commission.

Finally, the Appellant contends that his crimes were Acts o the State,

the responsiility or which rests with the State alone and another

State has no right to punish the person who committed the act, sa'e

with the consent o the state whose mission he carried out. This ground

o appeal was re"ected y the Supreme $ourt as there is no asis or

applying the doctrine to acts prohiited y international law,

particularly in cases o such heinous international crimes.

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

7/16

US vs. Fa(a) 'uni)

US vs Alvare)&Macain

Facts3

Hespondent, a citien and resident o Be*ico, was orcily

kidnaped rom his home and own y pri'ate plane to Te*as, where he

was arrested or his participation in the kidnaping and murder o a

;rug norcement Administration (;A) agent and the agent+s pilot.

Bter concluding that ;A agents were responsile or the aduction,

the ;istrict $ourt dismissed the indictment on the ground that it

'iolated the *tradition Treaty etween the -nited States and Be*ico

(*tradition Treaty or Treaty), and ordered respondent+s repatriation.

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

8/16

 The $ourt o Appeals afrmed. 4ased on one o its prior decisions, the

court ound that, since the -nited States had authoried the aduction

and since the Be*ican Eo'ernment had protested the Treaty 'iolation,

 "urisdiction was improper.

1eld3

 The act o respondent+s orcile aduction does not prohiit his

trial in a -nited States court or 'iolations o this country+s criminal

laws.

(a) A deendant may not e prosecuted in 'iolation o the terms o an

e*tradition treaty. United States '. Rauscher, / -. S. !9. 1owe'er,

when a treaty has not een in'oked, a court may properly e*ercise

 "urisdiction e'en though the deendant+s presence is procured ymeans o a orcile aduction. Ker '. Illinois, / -. S. 85. Thus, i the

*tradition Treaty does not prohiit respondent+s aduction, the rule

o Ker applies and "urisdiction was proper.

() >either the Treaty+s language nor the history o negotiations and

practice under it supports the proposition that it prohiits aductions

outside o its terms. The Treaty says nothing aout either country

reraining rom orcily aducting people rom the other+s territory or

the conse@uences i aduction occurs. %n addition, although the

Be*ican Eo'ernment was made aware o the Ker doctrine as early as/!5, and language to curtail Ker was drated as early as /80, the

 Treaty+s current 'ersion contains no such clause.

(c) Eeneral principles o international law pro'ide no asis or

interpreting the Treaty to include an implied term prohiiting

international aductions. %t would go eyond estalished precedent

and practice to draw such an inerence rom the Treaty ased on

respondent+s argument that aductions are so clearly prohiited in

international law that there was no reason to include the prohiition in

the Treaty itsel. %t was the practice o nations with regard to

e*tradition treaties that ormed the asis or this $ourt+s decision

in Rauscher, supra, to imply a term in the e*tradition treaty etween

the -nited States and ngland. Hespondent+s argument, howe'er,

would re@uire a much larger inerential leap with only the most general

o international law principles to support it. 6hile respondent may e

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/119/407/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/119/436/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/119/436/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/119/407/case.html

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

9/16

correct that his aduction was shocking and in 'iolation o general

international law principles, the decision whether he should e

returned to Be*ico, as a matter outside the Treaty, is a matter or the

*ecuti'e 4ranch.

SECRETAR' OF #USTICE vs. LANTION

Facts3

Gn &une , ///, the ;epartment o &ustice recei'ed rom the

;epartment o Foreign A2airs o the -nited States re@uesting or the

e*tradition o Bark &imene or 'arious crimes in 'iolation o -S laws.

%n compliance with the related municipal law, speci:cally #residential

;ecree >o. !5/ I#rescriing the #rocedure or *tradition o #ersons

6ho 1a'e committed $rimes in a Foreign $ountryJ and the estalished

I*tradition Treaty 4etween the Eo'ernment o the #hilippines and theEo'ernment o the -nited States o AmericaJ, the department

proceeded with the designation o a panel o attorneys to conduct a

technical e'aluation and assessment as pro'ided or in the presidential

decree and the treaty. The respondent re@uested or a copy o the

ofcial e*tradition re@uest as well as the documents and papers

sumitted therein.

 The petitioner denied the re@uest as it alleges that such inormation is

con:dential in nature and that it is premature to pro'ide such

document as the process is not a preliminary in'estigation ut a mere

e'aluation. Thereore, the constitutional rights o the accused are not

yet a'ailale.

%ssue3

6hether or not pri'ate respondent, Bark 4. &imene, shall e granted

access to the ofcial e*tradition re@uest and documents with an

opportunity to :le a comment on or opposition thereto

1eld3

>G. The e*traditee+s right to know is m*men!arily (i!eld durin+!e evalua!i*n s!a+e o the e*tradition process to accommodate themore compelling interest o the State to pre'ent escape o potentiale*traditees which can e precipitated y premature inormation o theasis o the re@uest or his e*tradition. >o less compelling a! !a!s!a+e o the e*tradition proceedings is the need to e more deerentialto the "udgment o a coNe@ual ranch o the go'ernment, the*ecuti'e, which has een endowed y our $onstitution with greater

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

10/16

power o'er matters in'ol'ing our oreign relations. >eedless to state,this alance o interests is n*! a s!a!ic ,u! a m*vin+ ,alance whichcan e ad"usted as the e*tradition process mo'es rom theadministrati'e stage to the "udicial stage and to the e*ecution stagedepending on actors that will come into play. %n sum, we rule that

the !em-*rary *ld on pri'ate respondent+s pri'ilege o notice andhearing is a s*! res!rain! on his right to due process which will notdepri'e him o undamen!al airness should he decide to resist there@uest or his e*tradition to the -nited States. Tere is n* denial * due -r*cess as l*n+ as undamen!al airness is assured a-ar!y.

RE"INA vs. BARTLE

#inochet (;), the ormer head o state o $hile, was considered y the

1ouse o Lords (#) to ha'e contra'ened the pro'isions o the Torture

$on'ention. This con'ention ecame law on the th o ;ecemer /

and $hile, Spain and the -nited Oingdom were all parties to it. 4ut

#inochet (;), citing the act that he was a ormer head o state,

claimed that he was immune under the principle o international law.

%ssue3

%s the pro'ision o the Torture $on'ention consistent with the notion o 

continued immunity or ormer head o states<

1eld3

 =es. The pro'ision o the Torture $on'ention is not consistent with the

notion o continued immunity or ormer head o states. #inochet (;)

was not acting in any capacity that gi'es rise to immunity i as allegedP

he masterminded and authoried torture ater the th o ;ecemer

/ ecause these acts clearly contra'ene international law. 1ence,

the torture proceedings rought against the deendant should only

continue on the allegation that torture in pursuance o a conspiracy to

commit torture was eing committed y the deendant ater he lost his

immunity in ;ecemer /.

RE%UBLIC OF IN$ONESIA vs. /IN0ON

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

11/16

FACTS1 #etitioner Qinon entered into a Baintenance Agreement with

respondent. The maintenance agreement includes the ollowing

speci:c e@uipment3 air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical

acilities, water heaters and water motor pumps. The agreement shall

e e2ecti'e or years.

 The new Binister $ounselor allegedly ound respondent+s work and

ser'ices unsatisactory and not in compliance with the standards set in

the Agreement. The respondent terminated the agreement with the

respondent. The latter claimed that it was unlawul and aritrary.

Hespondent :led a Botion to ;ismiss alleging that the Hepulic o 

%ndonesia, as a oreign state, has so'ereign immunity rom suit and

cannot e sued as partyNdeendant in the #hilippines.

ISSUE1 6R> the $A erred in sustaining the trial court+s decision thatpetitioners ha'e wai'ed their immunity rom suit y using as its asis

the pro'ision in the Baintenance Agreement.

HEL$1 The mere entering into a contract y a oreign state with a

pri'ate party cannot e construed as the ultimate test o whether or

not it is an act "uri imperii or "uri gestionis. Such act is only the start o 

the in@uiry. There is no dispute that the estalishment o a diplomatic

mission is an act "uri imperii. The state may enter into contracts with

pri'ate entities to maintain the premises, urnishings and e@uipment o 

the emassy. The Hepulic o %ndonesia is acting in pursuit o a

so'ereign acti'ity when it entered into a contract with the respondent.

 The maintenance agreement was entered into y the Hepulic o 

%ndonesia in the discharge o its go'ernmental unctions. %t cannot e

deemed to ha'e wai'ed its immunity rom suit.

US vs. TEHRAN

Facts3

%n >o'emer , /9, student militants o the group Buslim StudentFollowers o the %mam+s Line arged into the -S massy in Tehran and

held -S diplomats and consulars hostage or days. The cause o 

the %ranian students? action against the -S was elie'ed to e the

latter?s grant o medical asylum to Shah Bohammad Hea #ahla'i and

its reusal to turn the Shah o'er or trial.

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

12/16

 The -S sought recourse eore the international court, asking that the

hostages e reed and that reparations e gi'en to the -S y the

%ranian go'ernment or the latter?s ailure to carry its international

legal oligations. -S a'erred that %ran was responsile due to its initial

inaction to the crisis and its suse@uent statement o support to the

seiure.

%ssue3

6hether or not %ran was liale to the -nited States or the seiure o 

the -S emassy and the hostageNtaking o the -S nationals y the

%ranian militants.

Huling3

%ran was under oligation to make reparations or the in"ury caused tothe -nited States.

%ran?s ailure to take appropriate steps to protect the -S emassy and

$onsulates was a 'iolation o its oligations under the /5 Qienna

$on'ention on ;iplomatic Helations, the /58 Qienna $on'ention on

$onsular Helations, and /00 Treaty o Amity, conomic Helations and

$onsular Hights etween %ran and the -nited States. %ran had the

international legal responsiility to keep the emassy in'iolale. %ran

was ully aware o its oligations ut it did nothing to pre'ent the take

o'er and the capti'ity o the -S nationals.

Although the takeNo'er o the emassy was not held to ha'e een an

act o the state, the conse@uent detention o the -S nationals was

attriuted to %ran ecause o its appro'al and support to said

detention, such act was a 'iolation o the pro'isions in the aorenamed

con'entions and treaty. IGnce organs o the %ranian State had thus

gi'en appro'al to the acts complained o and decided to perpetuate

them as a means o pressure on the -nited States, those acts were

transormed into acts o the %ranian State3 the militants ecame agents

o that State, which itsel ecame internationally responsile or theiracts.J

For its reaches, the %slamic Hepulic o %ran had incurred responsiility

towards the -nited States o America. %ran is oliged to make

reparations and to endea'or or the release o the hostages.

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

13/16

$AS ;G$TH%>Bighell 's. Sultan o &ohore The Sultan o &ohore was sued or

reach o promise to marry in a

4ritish court. The su"ect o the

suit thereore was a pri'ate

matter, not a state matter. -pon

'eri:cation o his eing a sitting

oreign so'ereign, the case was

dismissed. The immunity that is

recognied here is asolute or a

sitting head o state.

Pinochet Case #inochet did not en"oy immunity

rom prosecution as a ormer head

o state and could e e*tradited to

Spain.

The Schooner Exchange '.

MacFaddon

$hie &ustice Barshall noted that

Ithe nation within its own territory

is necessarily e*clusi'e and

asolute. %t is susceptile o no

limitation not imposed y itsel.J

1owe'er, he immediately added

that asolute territorial "urisdiction

Iwould not seem to contemplate

oreign so'ereigns nor their

so'ereign rights as its o"ects.

Gne so'ereign eing in no respect

amenale to anotherP and eing

ound y oligations o the

highest character not to degrade

the dignity o his nation, y

placing himsel or its so'ereignrights within the "urisdiction o 

another, can e supposed to enter

a oreign territory ... in the

con:dence that the immunities

elonging to his independent

so'ereign station, though not

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

14/16

e*pressly stipulated, are reser'ed

y implication, and will e

e*tended to him.J

Dralle '. Repulic o!  

C"echoslo#a$ia

%t can no longer e said that y

international law soNcalled actagestionis are e*empt rom

municipal "urisdiction. This

su"ection o the acta gestionis

to the "urisdiction o States has its

asis in the de'elopment o the

commercial acti'ity o States.

United States o! %merica '. &on'

('M' Rui"

A State may e said to ha'e

descended to the le'el o an

indi'idual and can thus e

deemed to ha'e tacitly gi'en its

consent to e sued only when it

enters into usiness contracts.

United States '. &on' )uis Re*es %nasmuch as the State authories

only legal acts y its ofcers,

unauthoried acts o go'ernment

ofcials or ofcers are not acts o 

the State, and an action against

the ofcials or ofcers y one

whose rights ha'e een in'aded

or 'iolated y such acts, or the

protection o his rights, is not a

suit against the State within the

rule o immunity o the State rom

suit.

&ol* See '. Erierto Rosario, +r'  The logical @uestion is whether

the oreign state is engaged in the

acti'ity in the regular course o 

usiness. % the oreign state is not

engaged regularly in a usiness or

trade, the particular act or

transaction must then e tested

y its nature. % the act is in

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

15/16

pursuit o a so'ereign acti'ity, or

an incident thereo, then it is an

act ure imperii, especially when it

is not undertaken or gain or

pro:t.

Underhill '. &ernande" 'ery so'ereign state is ound to

respect the independence o e'ery

other so'ereign state, and the

courts o one country will not sit in

 "udgment on the acts o the

go'ernment o another, done

within its own territory. Hedress o 

grie'ances y reason o such acts

must e otained through themeans open to e a'ailed o y

so'ereign powers as etween

themsel'es.

-anco .ational de Cua '.

Saatino

 The act o state doctrine does,

howe'er, ha'e IconstitutionalJ

underpinnings. %t arises out o the

asic relationships etween

ranches o go'ernment in a

system o separation o powers. %tconcerns the competency o 

dissimilar institutions to make and

implement particular kinds o 

decisions in the area o  

international relations. The

doctrine as ormulated in past

decisions e*presses the strong

sense o the &udicial 4ranch that

its engagement in the task o 

passing on the 'alidity o oreign

acts o state may hinder rather

than urther this country?s pursuit

o goals oth or itsel and or the

community o nations as a whole

in the international sphere

8/18/2019 PIL chap 9-10

16/16

 %l!red Dunhill o! )ondon, Inc' '.

Cua

 The concept o an act o state

should not e e*tended to include

the repudiation o a purely

commercial oligation owed y a

oreign so'ereign or y one o its

commercial instrumentalities.

Kir$patric$ Co' '. En#ironmental

Tectonics Corp

 The act o state doctrine does not

estalish an e*ception or cases

and contro'ersies that may

emarrass oreign go'ernments,

ut merely re@uires that, in the

process o deciding, the acts o 

oreign so'ereigns taken within

their own "urisdictions shall edeemed 'alid. That doctrine has

no application to the present case

ecause the 'alidity o a oreign

so'ereign act is not at issue.