Act Of State Doctrine

The doctrine is not part of the International Law , but part of the United States National Law . Its aim is not to protect other nations sovereignty by intervention from the US but to protect the US Executive 's prerogative in foreign policies from intervention by US Court s.

BACKGROUND

The Act of State Doctrine, which was created sometime in the 17th Century, entered into American jurisprudence in the classic case Underhill v. Hernandez. In an 1892 revolution, General Hernandez expelled the existing Venezuela n 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 Bolivar and run the waterworks. Hernandez finally relented and allowed Underhill to return to the United States where he instituted an action to recover for his detention in Venezuela. In finding for the defendant, a New York Court determined that Hernandez had acted as a military commander, and through this position he had imputed governmental authority. The Court reasoned: “ {Link without Title} very 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.”

LATER CASES

In later decisions, the courts expounded on the principals and policies underlying the Act of State Doctrine. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino stated that although the Doctrine is not implicit in the Constitution, it does have constitutional underpinnings. The court acknowledged an implied separation of powers in Act of State questions, reasoning that sensitive areas of foreign policy were better left to the executive branch.

In 1964, the Supreme Court decided Sabbatino, holding that despite Cuba’s nationalization of its industry effectively converted American citizen’s investments into state property without compensation, the court would not sit in judgment of another state's actions. In response to the outcome of the case, Congress enacted 22 U.S.C. §2370, more commonly referred to as the “Second Hickenlooper Amendment,” named after the bill’s outraged sponsor, Bourke B. Hickenlooper, an Iowa Senator.

After Sabbatino, Congress moved swiftly to curtail the act of state doctrine, but the judiciary has undermined the effort by narrowly interpreting the amendment and continuing to apply the doctrine wherever it does not conflict with a constrained reading of the Hickenlooper Amendment. For instance, the Second Circuit held that the Amendment only applied if the property involved in the foreign act was inside the United States. More importantly, the court in Hunt v. Coastal States Gas Producing Co. found the Hickenlooper Amendment merely extended to property- not contractual rights. In light of Hunt, it appears courts are extremely reticent to disavow the Act of State Doctrine. Thus, the Act of State Doctrine remains an intricate, contemporary law to research.

SOURCE

http://www.answers.com/topic/act-of-state-doctrine

	APPAREL
	BABY
	BEAUTY
	BOOKS
	CAR TOYS
	CELL PHONES
	DVD'S
	ELECTRONICS
	GOURMET FOOD
	GROCERIES
	HEALTH & PERSONAL
	HOME & GARDEN
	JEWELRY
	MUSIC
	MUSIC INSTRUMENTS
	OFFICE PRODUCTS
	SOFTWARE
	SPORTING GOODS
	TOOLS & HARDWARE
	TOYS
	VIDEO GAMES
	SHOPPING HOME

	MORE SHOPPING...

	CATEGORIES ABOUT ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE

	international law

Information About

Act Of State Doctrine