Political question

Last updated

In United States constitutional law, the political questiondoctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [1] One scholar explained:

Contents

The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.

— John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]

A ruling of nonjusticiability, in the end, prevents the issue that brought the case before the court from being resolved in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine, the issue presented before the court is either so specific that the Constitution gives sole power to one of the political branches, or the issue presented is so vague that the Constitution does not even consider it. A court can only decide issues based on the law. The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government. If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use. When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process. The court will not engage in political disputes.

Origin

The doctrine has its roots in the historic original Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). [3] [4] In that case, Chief Justice John Marshall drew a distinction between two different functions of the U.S. Secretary of State. Marshall stated that when the Secretary of State was performing a purely discretionary matter, such as advising the President on matters of policy, he was not held to any legally identifiable standards. Therefore, some of the Secretary's actions are unable to be reviewed by a court of law. [3] Marshall argued that Courts should generally not hear cases where political questions were involved and individual rights were not implicated (later versions of the political question doctrine argued that it applied even if individual rights were at stake[ attribution needed ]). [3]

Doctrine

Unlike the rules of standing, ripeness, and mootness, when the political question doctrine applies, a particular question is beyond judicial competence no matter who raises it, how immediate the interests it affects, or how burning the controversy. [4] The doctrine is grounded in the principle of separation of powers, as well as the federal judiciary's desire to avoid inserting itself into conflicts between branches of the federal government. [4] It is justified by the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, in which voters can approve or correct the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision, or simply beyond judicial capability. [4]

The leading Supreme Court case in the area of the political question doctrine is Baker v. Carr (1962). [5] [4] In that case, the Supreme Court held that an unequal apportionment of a state legislature may have denied equal protection and presented a justiciable issue. [4] In the Baker opinion, the Court outlined six characteristics "[p]rominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question": [5]

The first factor—a textually demonstrable commitment to another branch—is the classical view that the Court must decide all cases and issues before it unless, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, the Constitution itself has committed the determination of the issue to another branch of government. [6] The second and third factors—lack of judicially discoverable standards and involvement of the judiciary in nonjudicial policy determinations—suggest a functional approach, based on practical considerations of how government ought to work. [7] The final three factors—lack of respect for other branches, need for adherence to a political decision already made, and possibility of embarrassment—are based on the Court's prudential consideration against overexertion or aggrandizement. [8]

Other applications

While the scope of the political question doctrine is still unsettled, its application has been mostly settled in a few decided areas. These areas are:

Guarantee Clause

The Guarantee Clause, Article IV, Section 4, requires the federal government to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". The Supreme Court has ruled that this clause does not imply any set of "judicially manageable standards which a court could utilize independently in order to identify a State's lawful government". [9] On this ground, the Court refused in Luther v. Borden to decide which group was the legitimate government of Rhode Island. [10] [11] Since then, the Court has consistently refused to resort to the Guarantee Clause as a constitutional source for invalidating state action, [4] such as whether it is lawful for states to adopt laws through referendums. [12]

Impeachment

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution states that the House "shall have the sole power of Impeachment", and Article I, section 3 provides that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments". [13] Since the Constitution placed the sole power of impeachment in two political bodies, it is qualified as a political question. As a result, neither the decision of the House to impeach, nor of the Senate to remove a President or any other official, can be appealed to any court. [14]

Foreign policy and war

A court will not usually decide if a treaty has been terminated because, on that issue, "governmental action ... must be regarded as of controlling importance". [15] However, courts sometimes do rule on the issue. One example of this is native American tribes who have been officially terminated do not lose their treaty concessions without explicit text from Congress that the treaty is also abrogated.

In the case of bin Ali Jaber v. United States (2017), the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 after a 2012 U.S. drone strike killed five civilians. [16] The District of Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the "plaintiffs challenged the type of executive decision found nonjusticiable in El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States (2010)." In El-Shifa, the court distinguished "between claims questioning the wisdom of military action, 'a policy choice . . . constitutionally committed' to the political branches, and 'legal issues such as whether the government had legal authority to act.'" [17] Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs' argument required the court to make a policy decision. [17]

Gerrymandering

There have been multiple cases on the justiciability of gerrymandering:

Private military contractors

In the case of Ghane v. Mid-South (January 16, 2014), [21] the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a wrongful death action against a private military company by the family of a deceased United States Navy SEAL could proceed under Mississippi law since the plaintiff's claims did not present a non-justiciable political question under Baker v. Carr (1962). [5]

Court cases

Important cases discussing the political question doctrine:

Beyond the United States

The political question doctrine has also had significance beyond American constitutional law.

France

A type of act by the French government, the acte de gouvernement , avoids judicial review as it is too politically sensitive. [23] [24] While the scope of the concept has been reduced over time, there are still acts that the courts do not have jurisdiction over, such as matters that are deemed to be unseverable from France's diplomatic acts, like the President's decision to conduct tests of nuclear weapons or to sever financial aid to Iraq. [23] [24] Other acts include the President's decision to dissolve Parliament, award honors, or grant amnesty. [24] Such actes de gouvernement need to be politically-based and also concern domains in which the courts are not competent to judge, e.g. national security and international relations. [24]

Japan

The postwar constitution gave the Supreme Court of Japan the power of judicial review, and the court developed its own political question doctrine (Japanese : 統治行為; tōchikōi). [25] The Supreme Court of Japan was in part trying to avoid deciding the merits of cases under Article 9 of the post-war pacifist constitution, which renounces war and the threat or use of force. [26] Issues arising under Art. 9 include the legitimacy of Japan's Self-Defense Force, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, and the stationing of U.S. Forces in Japan. [25]

The Sunagawa case is considered the leading precedent on the political question doctrine in Japan. [25] In 1957, in what was later known as the "Sunagawa incident," demonstrators entered a then U.S. military base in the Tokyo suburb of Sunagawa. [27] By their entry into the base, demonstrators violated a special Japanese criminal law based on the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. [27] A Tokyo District Court found that the U.S. military's presence in Japan were unconstitutional under Art. 9 of the Constitution and acquitted the defendants. [27]

The Supreme Court overturned the district court in a fast-track appeal, implicitly developing the political question doctrine in the ruling. [28] [29] The Court found it inappropriate for the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of highly political matters like the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, unless they expressly violate the Constitution. [26] On the Security Treaty, the Court saw "an extremely high degree of political consideration" and "there is a certain element of incompatibility in the process of judicial determination of its constitutionality by a court of law which has as its mission the exercise of the purely judicial function." [30] It therefore found that the question should be resolved by the Cabinet, the Diet, and ultimately by the people through elections. [30] [25] The presence of U.S. forces, moreover, did not violate Article 9 of the pacifist Constitution, because it did not involve forces under Japanese command. [30]

Thereafter, the political question doctrine became a barrier for challenges under Art. 9. [31] [32] [33] Under the "clear mistake" rule developed by the Court, it defers to the political branches on Art. 9 issues so long as the act is "not obviously unconstitutional and void." [30] [25]

Other notable cases on the political question doctrine in Japan include the Tomabechi case, which concerned whether the dissolution of the Diet was valid. [34] In the Tomabechi case, the Court also decided against judicial review by implicitly invoking the political question doctrine, citing the separation of powers as justification. [25] In addition, the Court announced that in political question cases not related to Art. 9, the clear mistake rule does not apply and judicial review is categorically prohibited. [25]

Switzerland

In 2007, Taiwan filed a lawsuit before a Swiss civil court against the International Organization for Standardization, arguing that the ISO's use of the United Nations name "Taiwan, Province of China" rather than "Republic of China (Taiwan)" violated Taiwan's name rights. [35] On 9 September 2010, a panel of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland decided, by three votes to two, to dismiss the suit as presenting a political question not subject to Swiss civil jurisdiction. [36] [37] [38]

Taiwan

The Judicial Yuan on 26 November 1993 interpreted that the delimitation of national territory would be a significant political question beyond the reach of judicial review. [39]

International Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights

In international courts, the International Court of Justice has dealt with the doctrine in its advisory function, and the European Court of Human Rights has engaged with the doctrine through the margin of appreciation. [40]

Court of Justice of the European Union

Within European Union law, the Court of Justice of the European Union has never explicitly addressed the political question doctrine in its jurisprudence, yet it has been argued that there are traces of the doctrine present in its rulings. [41]

Related Research Articles

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mootness</span> Legal term on the status of a matter

The terms moot, mootness and moot point are used in both in English and American law, although with different meanings.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists. Essentially, justiciability seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court believes that it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.

An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court or a commission like an election commission that does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. Some countries have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may certify important questions to the judiciary and obtain an advisory opinion. In other countries or specific jurisdictions, courts may be prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Japan</span> Highest court of Japan

The Supreme Court of Japan, located in Hayabusachō, Chiyoda, Tokyo, is the highest court in Japan. It has ultimate judicial authority to interpret the Japanese constitution and decide questions of national law. It has the power of judicial review, which allows it to determine the constitutionality of any law or official act.

<i>Operation Dismantle v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Operation Dismantle v R [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada where the court rejected a section 7 Charter challenge against the government for allowing the US government to test cruise missiles over Canadian territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial system of Japan</span> Judicial branch of Japan

In the judicial system of Japan, the Constitution of Japan guarantees that "all judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by this constitution and the Laws". They cannot be removed from the bench "unless judicially declared mentally or physically incompetent to perform official duties", and they cannot be disciplined by executive agencies. Supreme Court judges, however, may be removed by a majority of voters in a referendum that occurs at the first general election following the judge's appointment and every ten years thereafter. The judiciary was far more constrained under the Meiji Constitution than it is under the present Constitution and had no authority over administrative or constitutional law cases. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice had complete and direct control over the courts' administrative affairs. Nonetheless, Professor John Haley argues that the courts maintained complete independence in the adjudication of particular cases. "Judicial independence from the political branches was emphatically established as a fundamental principle of governance in Article 57 of the Meiji Constitution. Of all branches of government only the courts exercised authority 'in the name of the Emperor'." Haley argues that this was and remains a matter of great pride for Japanese judges and notes that "placed prominently in all courtrooms was the inscription 'in the name of the Emperor' as a meaningful reminder to imperial officials and subjects alike that the Emperor's judges were not subject to political control or direction."

Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which the United States had signed with the Republic of China, so that relations could instead be established with the People's Republic of China.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A Supreme Court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction, however, this is typically limited to constitutional law.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.

Following is an incomplete list of the 2008 Decisions of the Supreme Court of Japan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review</span> Ability of courts to review actions by executive and legislatures

Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.

In U.S. constitutional law, the last resort rule is a largely prudential rule which gives a federal court the power to avoid a constitutional issue in some circumstances. It is one the seven rules of the constitutional avoidance doctrine established in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936) and requires that the Supreme Court of the United States to "not [rule] upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. ... [I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter."

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case that provided the first elaboration of the doctrine of "Constitutional avoidance".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional avoidance</span> United States judicial doctrine

Constitutional avoidance is a legal doctrine of judicial review in United States constitutional law that dictates that United States federal courts should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved without involving constitutionality. In Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), the Supreme Court of the United States established a seven-rule test for the justiciability of controversies presenting constitutional questions:

  1. Collusive lawsuit rule: The Court will not [rule] upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."
  2. Ripeness: The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it."
  3. Minimalism: The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."
  4. Last resort rule: The Court will not [rule] upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. ... [I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.
  5. Standing; Mootness: The Court will not [rule] upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation.
  6. Constitutional estoppel: The Court will not [rule] upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
  7. Constitutional avoidance canon: "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided."

Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012), is a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that a dispute about passport regulation was not a political question and thus resolvable by the US court system. Specifically, Zivotofsky's parents sought to have his passport read "Jerusalem, Israel", rather than "Jerusalem", as his place of birth. The State Department had rejected that request under a longstanding policy that took no stance on the legal status of Jerusalem. Zivotofsky's parents then sued, citing a Congressional law that ordered the Secretary of State to list people born in Jerusalem as born in Israel.

Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that rejected the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a theory that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, without presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.

References

  1. ↑ Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.
  2. ↑ John E. Finn (2016). "Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights". The Teaching Company. Part I: Lecture 4: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation (see page 55 in the guidebook)
  3. 1 2 3 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 § 15 "Case or Controversy"—Political Questions, 20 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Deskbook § 15 (2d ed.)
  5. 1 2 3 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).
  6. ↑ Wechsler, Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 7–9 (1959); Weston, Political Questions, 38 Harv.L.Rev. 296 (1925).
  7. ↑ Nowak & Rotunda, Constitutional Law, 8th ed. 2010, pp. 137–138; Scharpf, Judicial Review and the Political Question: A Functional Analysis, 75 Yale L.J. 517 (1966).
  8. ↑ Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch, 1962, pp. 23–28, 69–71; Bickel, The Supreme Court, 1960 Term: Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 40, 46, 75 (1961); Finkelstein, Judicial Self–Limitation, 37 Harv.L.Rev. 338, 361 (1924); Finkelstein, Some Further Notes on Judicial Self–Limitation, 39 Harv.L.Rev. 221 (1926).
  9. ↑ Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 223 (1962).
  10. ↑ 48 U.S. 1 (1849)
  11. ↑ Note, Political Rights as Political Questions: The Paradox of Luther v. Borden, 100 Harv.L.Rev. 1125 (1987).
  12. ↑ Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. State of Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912)
  13. ↑ United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2-3.
  14. ↑ Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
  15. ↑ Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 212. (1962).
  16. ↑ "In Civilians' Claims for Damages after Drone Strike in Yemen, District of Columbia Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Case on Political Question Grounds". International Law Update. 23: 45–47. 2017.
  17. 1 2 "bin Ali Jaber v. United States". harvardlawreview.org. 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1473. 2018-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-19.
  18. ↑ Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986).
  19. ↑ Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004)
  20. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 18, 2018). "Supreme Court Sidesteps Decision on Partisan Gerrymandering". The New York Times. Retrieved November 18, 2018.
  21. ↑ "Narjess Ghane, et al v. Mid-South Institute of Self Defense Shooting; JFS, LLC; John Fred Shaw; Donald Ross Sanders, Jr.; and Jim Cowan (Miss.2014)" (PDF).
  22. ↑ Cynthia Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar Inc.
  23. 1 2 Jully, A. (2019). Propos orthodoxes sur l'acte de gouvernement: (Note sous Conseil d'Etat, 17 avr. 2019, Société SADE, n°418679, Inédit au Lebon). Civitas Europa, 43(2), 165-171. doi:10.3917/civit.043.0165.
  24. 1 2 3 4 Bell, John; Boyron, Sophie; Whittaker, Simon (2008-03-27). Principles of French Law. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199541393.001.0001. ISBN   978-0-19-954139-3.
  25. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chen, Po Liang; Wada, Jordan T. (2017). "Can the Japanese Supreme Court Overcome the Political Question Hurdle?". Washington International Law Journal. 26: 349–79.
  26. 1 2 "Chance for court to right a wrong". The Japan Times. 2014-06-23. Retrieved 2020-05-14.
  27. 1 2 3 "Japan Top Court Rejects Retrial over 1957 Sunagawa Incident". nippon.com. 2018-07-19. Retrieved 2020-05-14.
  28. ↑ Motoaki Hatake, Kenkyū To Giron No Saizensen [Kenpō Article 9 - Frontiers of Research And Discussion], 94-95 (2006).
  29. ↑ Yasuo Hasebe, Constitutional Borrowing and Political Theory, INTL. J. OF CONST. L. 224, 226 (2003)
  30. 1 2 3 4 Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Dec. 16, 1959, A no. 710, 13 Saikō Saibansho Keiji Hanreishū [Keishū] 3225 (Japan).
  31. ↑ Tsunemasa Arikawa, Hōri Saikōsai tōchikōi [The Principle of Law, The Supreme Court, and Political Question], 87 HORITSU JIHO No. 5, 4 (2015).
  32. ↑ Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Apr. 2, 1969, 5, 23 Saikō Saibansho Keiji Hanreishū [Keishū] 685 (Japan).
  33. ↑ Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Aug. 28, 1996, 7, 50, Saikō Saibansho Minji Hanreishū [Minshū] 1952 (Japan).
  34. ↑ Saikō Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] June 8, 1960, 14 Saikō Saibansho Minji Hanreishū [Minshū] (7) 1206 (Japan).
  35. ↑ "Taiwan sues ISO over incorrect reference". Taipei Representative Office in the UK. Archived from the original on 2011-07-18.
  36. ↑ Felber, René (10 September 2010). "Umweg über Zivilrichter unzulässig: Taiwans Kampf um seinen Namen". Neue Zürcher Zeitung (in German). p. 14.
  37. ↑ "Urteil vom 9. September 2010 (5A_329/2009)" [Decision of 9 September 2010 (5A_329/2009)](PDF) (in German). Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 July 2011.
  38. ↑ "Arrêt du 9 septembre 2010 (5A_329/2009)" [Decision of 9 September 2010 (5A_329/2009)](PDF) (in French). Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2010.
  39. ↑ "Interpretation No.328: The Boundaries of National Territory Case". Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan). 1993-11-26. Retrieved 2022-11-07.
  40. ↑ Odermatt, Jed (2018). "Patterns of avoidance: political questions before international courts" (PDF). International Journal of Law in Context. 14 (2): 221–236. doi:10.1017/S1744552318000046. S2CID   217026045.
  41. ↑ Butler, Graham (9 November 2018). "In Search of the Political Question Doctrine in EU Law". Legal Issues of Economic Integration . 45 (4): 329–354. doi:10.54648/LEIE2018020. S2CID   158224219 . Retrieved 9 November 2018.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.