The Paquete Habana

Last updated

Paquete Habana v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7–8, 1899
Decided January 8, 1900
Full case namePaquete Habana.; The Loda.
Citations175 U.S. 677 ( more )
20 S. Ct. 290; 44 L. Ed. 320; 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1714
Case history
PriorAppeals From the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida
SubsequentNone
Holding
Federal courts could look to customary international law because it is an integrated part of American law.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan  · Horace Gray
David J. Brewer  · Henry B. Brown
George Shiras Jr.  · Edward D. White
Rufus W. Peckham  · Joseph McKenna
Case opinions
MajorityGray, joined by Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, Peckham
DissentFuller, joined by Harlan, McKenna

ThePaquete Habana; The Lola, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the applicability and recognition of international law by the United States. The Court held that the capture of fishing vessels as prizes of war violated customary international law, which is integrated with U.S. law and binding as such. [1] Paquete Habana influenced subsequent court decisions that incorporated international law regarding other matters. [2] The case is also notable for citing a wide breadth of historical and international sources, including jurists from around the world and foreign state practices going back centuries. [3]

Contents

Background of the case

In April 1898, two fishing vessels, the Paquete Habana and the Lola, separately sailed from the Spanish colony of Cuba. Both were eventually captured by merchant vessels comprising the United States blockade of the island, which, unbeknownst to the crew, had been instituted amid rising tensions between the two countries. President William McKinley proclaimed that the blockade was "in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and the law of nations applicable to such cases."

Shortly thereafter, the Spanish–American War was officially declared, and McKinley issued another proclamation stating that the war would be conducted "in harmony with the present views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice" and establishing rules for the capture of prizes; however, there was no mention of fishing vessels. The Paquete Habana and the Lola were ultimately taken to Key West, Florida, where they were auctioned by the federal district court, which has jurisdiction over prize cases.

Admiral William T. Sampson, who commanded the blockade, justified the seizures by stating that most fishing vessels flying under the Spanish banner were manned by well trained seamen with prior naval experience who could be called up to fight for Spain. The U.S. also relied on the longstanding international practice of capturing enemy vessels as prizes of war. [4]

The owners of the vessels appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing a centuries-long tradition of nations exempting fishing vessels from prize capture, even during war. At the time of capture, neither vessel had evidence of aiding the enemy, no arms were found on board, and no attempts were made to run the blockade or to resist capture. Pointing to McKinley's proclamation that the blockade conformed with international law, the claimants thus argued that the blockade should not have captured the vessels as prizes.

On appeal, the U.S. government argued that it had complied with international law under which there was precedent for the executive of a nation, through his military commanders, to exercise discretion as to whether there was an exemption of fishing vessels from prize capture. Notably, the government never contested that it must abide by international law.

Both parties in the case were invoking customary international law, the prevailing and long-running practices and norms that are observed and accepted by most countries as obligations, but differed as to what it permitted with respect to prizes.

Decision

In a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Gray, the Supreme Court ruled that coastal fishing vessels are exempt from capture as prizes of war under customary international law, which, barring a "controlling executive or judicial decision," must be incorporated into the corpus of U.S. law. [3]

The Court cited lengthy legal precedents in support of this conclusion, which it described as an "ancient usage among civilized nations, beginning centuries ago, and gradually ripening into a rule of international law." [4] In 1403, King Henry IV of England decreed his officers leave fisherman alone during times of war. He then signed a treaty with France reaffirming this act between both parties. Similarly, in 1521, a treaty between Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and Francis I of France exempted fishing vessels from capture, on the basis that both nations would face widespread hunger if fishermen did not feel safe to set sail.

Justice Gray also relied on the theories and opinions of contemporary jurists and commentators from across the world to buttress the Court's reasoning, decades before such scholarly legal work would be codified as a primary source of international law:

[A]t the present day, by the general consent of the civilized nations of the world, and independently of any express treaty or other public act, it is an established rule of international law, founded on considerations of humanity... and of the mutual convenience of belligerent states, that coast fishing vessels, with their implements and supplies, cargoes and crews, unarmed and honestly pursuing their peaceful calling of catching and bringing in fresh fish, are exempt from capture as prize of war. [3]

Among the most oft-cited and famous quotes of the decision concerned the relationship of international law to domestic U.S. law:

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is. [5]

The Supreme Court decision reversed the district court and ordered that the proceeds of the auctions, as well as any profits made from the vessels' cargo, be restored to the claimants "with damages and costs."

Fuller's dissent

Justice Fuller delivered a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Harlan and McKenna. [6] Fuller essentially agreed with the federal government's position and argued that the capture of fishing vessels as prizes had been in accordance with both customary international law and militarily necessary and that any exemption is under the discretion of the President as the nation's executive.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.

<i>United States v. Washington</i> 1974 court case

United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, aff'd, 520 F.2d 676, commonly known as the Boldt Decision, was a legal case in 1974 heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government. The tribes ceded their land to the United States but reserved the right to fish as they always had. This included their traditional locations off the designated reservations.

International law, also known as "law of nations", refers to the body of rules which regulate the conduct of sovereign states in their relations with one another. Sources of international law include treaties, international customs, general widely recognized principles of law, the decisions of national and lower courts, and scholarly writings. They are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating the international community are developed. They have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories.

Opinio juris sive necessitatis or simply opinio juris is the belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation. This is in contrast to an action resulting from cognitive reaction or behaviors habitual to an individual. This term is frequently used in legal proceedings such as a defense for a case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vienna Convention on Consular Relations</span> 1963 international treaty

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is an international treaty that defines a framework for consular relations between sovereign states. It codifies many consular practices that originated from state custom and various bilateral agreements between states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Israeli-occupied territories</span> Territories presently occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War

Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights since the Six-Day War of 1967. It previously occupied the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon as well. Prior to Israel's victory in the Six-Day War, occupation of the Palestinian territories was split between Egypt and Jordan, with the former having occupied the Gaza Strip and the latter having annexed the West Bank; the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights were under the sovereignty of Egypt and Syria, respectively. The first conjoined usage of the terms "occupied" and "territories" with regard to Israel was in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which was drafted in the aftermath of the Six-Day War and called for: "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" to be achieved by "the application of both the following principles: ... Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict ... Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The status of territories captured by Israel is the status of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula, all of which were captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1863), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1862 during the American Civil War. The Supreme Court's decision declared the blockade of the Southern ports ordered by President Abraham Lincoln constitutional. The opinion in the case was written by Supreme Court Justice Robert Cooper Grier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prize (law)</span> Vessel, cargo, or equipment captured during armed conflict on the seas

In admiralty law prizes are equipment, vehicles, vessels, and cargo captured during armed conflict. The most common use of prize in this sense is the capture of an enemy ship and its cargo as a prize of war. In the past, the capturing force would commonly be allotted a share of the worth of the captured prize. Nations often granted letters of marque that would entitle private parties to capture enemy property, usually ships. Once the ship was secured on friendly territory, it would be made the subject of a prize case: an in rem proceeding in which the court determined the status of the condemned property and the manner in which the property was to be disposed of.

The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812), is a United States Supreme Court case on the jurisdiction of federal courts over a claim against a friendly foreign military vessel visiting an American port. The court interpreted customary international law to determine that there was no jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Martens Clause</span> International law human rights statement

The Martens Clause is an early international law concept first introduced into the preamble of the 1899 Hague Convention II – Laws and Customs of War on Land. There are differing interpretations of its significance on modern international law, with some scholars simply treating the clause as a reminder international customary law still applies after a treaty is ratified while others take a more expansive approach where the clause provides that because international treaties cannot be all encompassing, states cannot use that as a justification for an action.

Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued.

<i>Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain</i> 2004 United States Supreme Court case

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Many ATS claims were filed after the Second Circuit ruling in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala created a new common law cause of action for torture under the ATS: "For purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind." The Court in Sosa does not find there is a similar cause of action for arbitrary arrest and detention. They wrote that finding new common law causes of action based on international norms would require "a substantial element of discretionary judgment", and explain that the role of common law has changed since ATS was enacted meaning the Court will "look for legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law".

The Confederate privateers were privately owned ships that were authorized by the government of the Confederate States of America to attack the shipping of the United States. Although the appeal was to profit by capturing merchant vessels and seizing their cargoes, the government was most interested in diverting the efforts of the Union Navy away from the blockade of Southern ports, and perhaps to encourage European intervention in the conflict.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Cooper Grier</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1846 to 1870

Robert Cooper Grier was an American jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796), also known as the British Debt Case, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that treaties take precedence over state law under the U.S. Constitution. It was the first Supreme Court case concerned with treaties, the first to rule that treaty provisions were as binding as domestic U.S. law, and the first to affirm the supremacy of federal law over state law. Ware is also notable for articulating the legal doctrine that would later be known as judicial review, whereby federal courts have the authority to settle conflicts of law.

Many legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid were published subsequent to the event. International law experts differed over the legality of the action by Israel. The force necessary to respond to violent resistance and whether the force that was used was proportionate were disputed.

Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800) was a case in maritime law, argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1800. The parties were John Bas, owner of the private vessel Eliza which was captured by French privateers at sea, and Tingy, commander of a public armed vessel—the Ganges—which recovered the Eliza.

The Steamship Appam, 243 U.S. 124 (1917), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a lower court's decision to restore the British prize of a German warship to the British owners.

References

  1. ↑ John O. McGinnis and Ilya Somin, "Should International Law Be Part of Our Law?" Stanford Law Review at 59 STAN. L. REV. 1175 (2007), [www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/mcginnis.pdf www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/mcginnis.pdf]
  2. ↑ Stucky, Scott W. (1985) "The Paquete Habana: A Case History in the Development of International Law," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 15: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol15/iss1/2
  3. 1 2 3 Stucky, Scott (January 1, 1985). "The Paquete Habana: A Case History in the Development of International Law". University of Baltimore Law Review. 15 (1): 30–31. ISSN   0091-5440.
  4. 1 2 Dodge, William S. (November 14, 2005). "The Story of the Paquete Habana: Customary International Law as Part of Our Law". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.847847. SSRN   847847.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  5. ↑ Eric George Reeves, United States V. Ja Vino: Reconsidering The Relationship Of Customary International Law To Domestic Law, 50 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 877 (1993), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol50/iss2/17
  6. ↑ Wikisource contributors (December 22, 2017), "The_Paquete_Habana/Dissent_Fuller", Wikisource, Wikimedia Foundation, retrieved May 2, 2019{{citation}}: |last= has generic name (help)
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.