Foreign relations and the judiciary

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 485-510

  Collins, Lawrence ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85017293839     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/51.3.485     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. The Sacrosanctity of the Foreign Act of State (1943) 59 LQR 42 and 155
2. reprinted in Mann, Studies in International Law (1973), 420.
3. For an appreciation of his work see Collins (1993) 64 BYIL 55.
4. 1933, as Harvard Studies in Administrative Law, vol 6.
5. Holdsworth, Act of State (1941) 41 Col. LR 1313
6. see Holdsworth, History of English Law (ed Goodhart and Hanbury, 1964), vol 14, 33–52.
7. Foreign Affairs in English Courts (1986).
8. See especially Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution (2nd edn 1996)
9. Franck, Political Questions/Judicial Answers (1992)
10. Franck and Glennon, Foreign Relations and National Security Law (1987)
11. Glennon, Franck and Cassidy, United States Foreign Relations Law: Documents and Sources, in five volumes (1980–1984); and, of course, Restatement of the Law Third, Foreign Relations Law.
12. See JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd. v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418.
13. Kuwait Airways Corp. v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2001] 3 WLR 1117 (CA). Judgment from the House of Lords on appeal is awaited.
14. Holtzman v Schlesinger, 414 US 1316 (1973).
15. 1976 Clunet 126.
16. Operation Dismantle v The Queen (1985) 18 DLR (4th) 481.
17. Lord Advocate's Reference No 1 of 2000, 2001 SLT 507.
18. Breard v Greene, 523 US 371 (1998)
19. Federal Republic of Germany v United States, 526 US 111 (1999). Subsequently in the latter case the International Court decided that its orders on provisional measures had binding effect, and that the United States had been in breach of the order by failing to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that the condemned man was not executed pending the final decision of the Court in the case (on the effect of failure by the United States to accord consular facilities to the accused): Germany v United States, judgment of 27 June 2001.
20. See also Higgins, in Liber Amicorum Georges Abi-Saab (2001), 547.
21. Briggs v Baptiste [2000] 2 AC 40.
22. Taylor v Barclay (1828) 2 Sim 213, 221).
23. In Foster v Globe Venture Syndicate [1901] Ch 811, 814
24. Farwell J repeated what Shadwell V-C had said, but Lord Sumner said, ‘This seems to be rather a maxim of policy than a rule of law’: Duff Development Co Ltd v Government of Kelantan [1924] AC 797, 826.
25. It was said of Sir Lancelot Shadwell that ‘so fond was he of the water that … he once granted an injunction during the long vacation while immersed in that element’ (Foss, Biographica Juridica (1870), 609).
26. See Mann, Foreign Affairs in English Courts (1986), ch 2.
27. Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853, 950.
28. [1977] AC 373, 399.
29. [1978] AC 547, 617.
30. Restatement of the Law Third, Foreign Relations Law, s 112, comment b.
31. Adams v Adams [1971] P 188, 197–8.
32. See British Airways Board v Laker Airways Ltd [1985] AC 50, where the intervention seems to have been rather half-hearted: see especially 69.
33. 1982] AC 888.
34. See R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex Pinochet (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147.
35. See Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229 (where Salmon LJ said that the role of the amicus was to help the court by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by advancing the legal argument on his behalf).
36. See also Secretary of State for Justice v Chan Wah [2000] 3 HKLRD 641 (Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal).
37. Parry, British Digest of International Law, vols 2b, 5–8 (1965–1967).
38. [1964] AC 556.
39. AC. The writer is unable to resist drawing attention to another Foreign Office document in the files, on which comment is unnecessary. A year later an official in the British Consulate in Jerusalem wrote to Mr Crawford (Assistant Under-Secretary of State, and later Sir Stewart Crawford) at the Foreign Office, with copies to the British Embassies in Washington and Cairo, and to the British mission at the UN: ‘For the first time in history (and probably not for the last) there is a Roman Catholic President of the United States. We all know how responsive an American President must be to the Zionist lobby, and how risky it is for a Roman Catholic President to appear at all responsive to the voice of the Vatican’ (FO 371/170543).
40. Gur Corp v Trust Bank of Africa Ltd [1987] QB 599.
41. [2000] HKLRD 252.
42. Blackburn v A-G [1971] 1 WLR 1037 (CA).
43. A-G for Canada v A-G for Ontario [1937] AC 326, 347 (PC).
44. Beaumartin v France (1994) 19 EHRR 485.
45. Briggs v Baptiste [2000] 2 AC 40.
46. Fisher v Minister of Public Safety and Immigration (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 434
47. Higgs v Minister of National Security [2000] 2 AC 228.
48. Thomas v Baptiste [2000] 2 AC 1
49. Lewis v Attorney General of Jamaica [2001] 2 AC 50.
50. Briggs v Baptiste [2000] 2 AC 40.
51. Fisher v Minister of Public Safety and Immigration (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 434, at 445.
52. Higgs v Minister of National Security [2000] 2 AC 228, at 241 ff.
53. Briggs v Baptiste [2000] 2 AC 40, 54.
54. [2000] 2 AC at 55.
55. [2001] 2 AC 50.
56. [1991] 1 AC 696.
57. Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No 3) [1991] 2 AC 114.
58. (1990) 39 ICLQ 513, 524–6.
59. Reprinted as Higgins, Problems and Process, 1994. See especially, 206–213.
60. [1988] 3 All ER 257 (CA).
61. [1995] 1 WLR 386.
62. Zschernig v Miller, 389 US 429, 440 (1968).
63. Re World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor Litigation, 164 F Supp 2d 1160 (ND Cal 2001).
64. See also Frumkin v JA Jones Inc (In Re Nazi Era Cases Against German Defendants Litigation), 129 F Supp 2d 370 (D NJ 2001).
65. 369 US 186 (1962).
66. 444 US 996 (1979).
67. 242 F 3rd 1300 (11th Cir 2001).
68. 347 F Supp 689 (ED Pa 1972)
69. affd (without opinion, Douglas, Brennan, and Stewart JJ. dissenting) sub. nom. Atlee v Richardson, 411 US 911 (1973).
70. See Mora v McNamara, 387 F 2d 862 (DC Cir 1967)
71. cert denied, 389 US 934 (1967), with Stewart and Douglas JJ dissenting.
72. See also United States v Mitchell, 369 F 2d at 323 (2d Cir 1966)
73. cert. denied, 386 US 972 (1967) Douglas J dissenting.
74. In Massachusetts v Laird, 400 US 886 (1970) Douglas J. dissented on a certiorari petition, and concluded it was wrong to deny a hearing to a state which was attempting to determine whether it was constitutional to require its citizens to fight in a foreign war without a congressional declaration, because, Justice Douglas said, ‘the question of an unconstitutional war is neither academic nor “political”.’
75. 361 F Supp 553
76. revd 484 F 2d 1307 (2d Cir 1973)
77. cert den 416 US 936 (1974).
78. 414 US 1304, 1315.
79. A quotation from Justice Black in the Pentagon Papers case: New York Times v United States, 403 US 713, 717 (1971).
80. 414 US 1316, 1320.
81. 414 US 1321(1973).
82. Justice Douglas's reaction was: ‘A Gallup Poll type of enquiry of widely scattered Justices is, I think, a subversion of the regime under which I thought we lived’: 414 US, at 1324.
83. See Franck and Glennon, Foreign Relations and National Security Law (1987), 762.
84. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374.
85. Operation Dismantle v The Queen (1985) 18 DLR (4th) 481.
86. 2001 SLT 507.
87. ICJ Rep. 1996, 66.
88. In R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] QB 517 at 539 Simon Brown LJ said that the legality of the rule prohibiting homosexuals from the armed forces was justiciable: only the rarest cases would today be ruled strictly beyond the purview of the court, only cases involving national security properly so called and where in addition the courts really do lack the expertise or material to form a judgment on the point at issue.
89. 444 US 996 (1979).
90. Baker v Carr itself.
91. Davis v Bandemer, 418 US 109 (1986).
92. Gilligan v Morgan, 413 US 1 (1973).
93. 218 F 3d 152 (2d Cir 2000).
94. Duke of Brunswick v King of Hanover (1848) 2 HLC 1.
95. Underhill v Hernandez, 168 US 250 (1897).
96. Oetjen v Central Leather Co., 246 US 297 (1918)
97. Ricaud v American Metal Co, 246 US 304 (1918).
98. Luther v Sagor [1921] 3 KB 532 (CA).
99. 168 US 250, 252 (1897).
100. Banco Nacional de Cuba v Sabbatino, 376 US 398 (1964).
101. [1921] 3 KB at 548.
102. Re St Mary the Virgin, Hurley [2001] 1 WLR 931.
103. First National City Bank of New York v Banco Nacional de Cuba, 406 US 759 (1972).
104. Alfred Dunhill of London Ltd v Republic of Cuba, 425 US 682 (1976).
105. The Rose Mary [1953] 1 WLR 246.
106. Buttes Gas & Oil Co v Hammer (Nos 2 and 3) [1982] AC 888.
107. The account of the facts that follows is based on Collins, in (1995–1996) 6 King's Coll. LJ 20.
108. Buttes Gas & Oil Co v Hammer [1975] QB 557.
109. For parallel US proceedings see Occidental Petroleum Corp. v Buttes Gas and Oil Co., 331 F Supp 92
110. affd 461 F 2d 1261
111. cert den 409 US 950 (1972)
112. Occidental of Umm al Qaywayn, Inc. v A Certain Cargo of Petroleum, 396 F Supp 461
113. affd 577 F 2d 1196
114. cert den 441 US 928 (1979).
115. Occidental of Umm al Qaywayn v A Certain Cargo of Petroleum, 577 F 2d 1196 (5th Cir 1978).
116. [2001] 3 WLR 1117, 1207.
117. Foreign Affairs and the US Constitution, 2nd edn (1996), 148.
118. British Airways Board v Laker Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58.
119. Gur Corp v Trust Bank of Africa Ltd. [1987] QB 599 (CA).