Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:39:22.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The "Act of State" Doctrine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Howard Thayer Kingsbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The field of international law in general is sharply demarked from that of municipal law, but it is the individuals, composing the population of the various states and nations, who furnish the points of contact where international friction may be generated. With the claims of a citizen or subject against his own government, and its officers and agencies, international law naturally has nothing to do. But when an individual asserts a claim against a government not his own, or against the individuals who carry on its operations, such a claim falls on one side or the other of the boundary between international law and municipal law, according to whether the claimant has or has not an adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of the state against which the claim exists.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 1910 , pp. 359 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1910

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See W. Harrison Moore’s "Act of State in English Law," pp. 4-31.

2 Law of the Constitution, 7th ed., p. 362, note 3.

3 Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 tJ. S. 250.

4 Musgrave v. Pulido, L. R. 5 App. Cases, Privy Council, 102.

5 Walker v.- Baird, L. R. 1892 App. Cases, Privy Council, 491.

6 Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch 170; United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196; Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10 United States v. Bevans, Fed. Cas. No. 14,589.

7 The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64; Maley v. Shattuck. 3 Cranch 458.

8 189 U. S. 453, 465.

9 Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187.

10 Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba, 13 Moo. P. C. 22.

11 Wiggins v. United States, 3 Ct. CI. 412.

12 Dempsey v. Chambers, 154 Mass. 330.

13 U. S. S. 312.

14 See "Purchasable Offices in Ceded Territory." by Percy Bordwell in the January, 1909, issue of the JOURNAL (Vol. 3, p. 119).

15 31 U. S. Stat. 897.

16 U. S. Rev. Stat., § 563, subd. 16.

17 135 Fed. Rep. 384.

18 142 Fed. Rep. 858.

19 Belknap v. Schild, supra.

20 118 U. 8. 356.

21 209 U. S. 45; see this Journal, Vol. 2, p. 684.

22 33 U. S. Stat. 2249.

23 1 Cow p. 161.