Test 2 Full Notes

11 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Mississauga
Political Science
Aurel Braun

Jurisdiction Immunity Extradition The law of the sea International organizations Achille Lauro Case • Civilian ship hijacked o Hijacking is offense againstALL nations • Jewish-American citizen killed by hijackers – US has interest in case now • Egypt agrees to let the hijackers off scot free if they release the passengers – give them plane and let them fly o US intercepts plane with jet and force it to land in NATO airbase in Italy o US can act under int’l law b/c  Jus Cogens  Murder of one of its citizens o Landed in Italy b/c they have a strong extradition treaty with Italy o US shows proof and asks Italy for extradition of men accused o Italy is reluctant b/c it wants to increase relations with middle east (esp Libya) o Italy doesn’t grant extradition and doesn’t even try the accused, just lets them off free o Though they say, after the guys are free that there will be serious consequences for those guys if they try to come back and hijack in Italy.. Campazano Case (Spanish Republic vs. Phillipe) • The Spanish Minister in Oslo, Norway’s substitute, Felipe Campuzano resigned on August 13 1936 and stated that he no longer rep’d the Spanish gov’t in Madrid. The minister also returned and resigned and joined General Franco’s Nationalist party. • On Dec 10, a new representative was assigned by the Madrid gov’t • During this time, the Spanish Legation had to move from its former premises, which took place under the direction of Campuzano, who took all the movables of the Legation into custody. The new rep claimed that the property belonged to Spain and not to Campuzano, and filed a case before the Supreme Court. The justice ruled that the Spanish gov’t is the only gov’t recognized by Norway as the gov’t of Spain, therefore the property belongs to Spain. • Recognition • http://bf4dv7zn3u.search.serialssolutions.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/? ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF- 8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mt x:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+Spanish+%28Republican %29+Government+v.+Felipe+Campuzano+%28General+Franco %27s+Representative+in+Norway %29&rft.jtitle=The+American+Journal+of+International+Law&rft.date=1939- 07-01&rft.pub=American+Society+of+International+Law&rft.issn=0002- 9300&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=609&rft.epage=611&rft.externalDo cID=10.2307%2F2190813 Hailie Selassie Case • The Emperor of Ethiophai was the de jure sovereign of Ethiopia, claiming money from a British company in his capacity as sovereign. The debt was recoverable in England, and so the fact that Italy was in de facto control of Ethiopia did not prevent the legally recognized sovereign from bringing a claim. He was successful, but the defendants appealed and while the case was ongoing, de jure recognition was granted to the Italians. Haile Selassie lost his right to sue because the recognition of Italian control overruled his position – he was no longer recognized as Emperor of Ethiopia. • The effects of non-recognition of a state of government by the UK in UK courts • http://www.kslr.org.uk/blogs/internationallaw/2012/02/21/the-effects-of-non- recognition-of-a-state-or-government-by-the-uk-in-uk-courts/ Luther v Sagor • Recognition of gov’t • 1921 Soviet Russia • Sagor bought wood from new Soviety gov’t of USSR; Luther claims title to wood on grounds that it had come from a factory in USSR that had been owned by it before being nationalized in 1919 by decree of soviet gov’t • Plaintiff argued that English court should not recognize the decree because the new soviet gov’t had not been recognized by UK • Court saw that Britain had implicitly recognized the new Soviet Gov’t of Russia  therefore the act of the gov’t had to be accepted as valid acts of state by British Courts Miguel vs. Sultan of Johore • State immunity for independent sovereign state of Johore • Breach of promise case  slept with woman who he had promised to marry and went back on his word • British had recognized him as head of a gov’t thereby recognizing his status • Britain had vested interest  there were treaties for an agreement of protection, which was enforced o Sultan had agreed not to enter into any other treaties to protect other states • Recognition trumps morals • British found in favour of Sultan and woman lost Schooner Exchange • Jurisdiction of federal courts over a claim against a friendly foreign military vessel visiting anAmerican port • The ship entered Spanish Port (war zone during Napoleonic time) trying to pick up shipments and was seized by Napoleon o Illegal b/c it was a civilian ship not carrying war goods from neutral country • France took the ship, renamed it and armed it with arms and the US allowed it back into their ports o Original owned got mad and sued France • Act of state doctrine: France has full right to do whatever it wants in its conquered territory and no one can tell it otherwise • The US could do the same thing since the ship was now in their territory, but they had given permission for the ship to enter, thereby waiving some of their sovereign rights Baja California • Need to be careful how you interpret • Hoffman sue Baja in court when Mexican vessel collides with Baja which caused damage • Mexican gov’t claims state immunity because the vessel is state owned o Can’t impose jurisdiction of one sovereign court onto jurisdiction of another sovereign court • Ship has been owned by Mexican gov’t, but it was leased to private company for 5 years to engage in COMMERCIAL activities (iure gestionis) • Ship had been leased out, so it’s not under gov’t possession  court had never accepted a claim of immunity when not under possession Queen of Holland vs Drukker • Sovereign immunity • Danish subject dies inAmsterdam in 1926, leaving behind vast estate • Part of the estate is in Britain and queen of Holland wants a cut • Britain refuses and queen sues • Loses in spite of sovereign immunity o Dom courts will not enforce the fiscal legislation of foreign sovereign and case is dismissed • ‘you have sovereign rights and immunities but you can’t reach your jurisdiction into our jurisdiction’ • sovereign immunity cannot be projected beyond your territory into other territory Rainbow Warrior Case • France had been conducting underground nuclear tests on the MuroroaAtoll in French Polynesia, claiming it did not environmental harm • Green Peace protested this for years, and even attempted to send vessels into the waters prohibited for navigation by France • In 1985, they sent the Rainbow Warrior, which two French agents sank in New Zealand’sAuckland harbour, where a crewman was also killed, so NZ seized the men involved • UN General Secretary ruled that France issue a formal apology to NZ and pay $7million • Vavassoeur vs Krupp • Vavasseur said he owned the patent for certain armaments on the ship of another nation. Case  thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction.  • Underhill • General José Manuel "Mocho" Hernández expelled the existing Venezuelan government and took control of Ciudad Bolivar, where plaintiff Underhill lived and ran a waterworks system for the city. Underhill, an American citizen, repeatedly applied to Hernandez for an exit passport, but his requests were refused, and Underhill was forced to stay in Ciudad Bolivar and run the waterworks. Hernandez finally relented and allowed Underhill to return to the United States, where he instituted an action to recover damages for his detention in Venezuela. In finding for the Defendant, a New York Court determined that Hernandez had acted in his official capacity as a military commander so his actions were those of the Venezuelan government. The Court therefore refused to hear Underhill's claim against the government based on theAct of State Doctrine. The Court reasoned, "Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory. • Augusto Pinochet • As the army leader, Instigated a coup against the gov’t of SalvadoreAllende (1973) o Managed to overthrow the gov’t and form a new gov’t in Chile • But the economy was falling apart ▯ recovered under Pinochet and became a successful economy ▯ transition to democ • Universal jurisdiction (war crimes) o Britain captures Pinochet and tries him for war crimes o H
More Less

Related notes for POL340Y5

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.