GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2009 The Federal Common Law of Nations Bradford R. Clark George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bradford R. Clark, The Federal Common Law of Nations, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\server05\productn\C\COL\109-1\toc1091.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-DEC-08 11:13 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 109 JANUARY 2009 NO. 1 CONTENTS ARTICLE THE FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF NATIONS Anthony J. Bellia Jr. 1 Bradford R. Clark NOTES DISCERNING DISCRIMINATION IN STATE TREATMENT OF AMERICAN INDIANS GOING BEYOND RESERVATION BOUNDARIES Shira Kieval 94 MORE BITTER THAN SWEET: A PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CRITIQUE OF CERTIFICATION PERIODS Amy McCamphill 138 ESSAY THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF PUNISHMENT Adam J. Kolber 182 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1346554 \\server05\productn\C\COL\109-1\boe1091.txt unknown Seq: 8 22-DEC-08 11:13 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 109 JANUARY 2009 NO. 1 Z.W. JULIUS CHEN Editor-in-Chief MATTHEW GURGEL JASON VITULLO DANIELLA LICHTMAN ESSES KAREN LIN JESSIE CHENG Executive Articles Executive Sidebar Executive Essay & Executive Executive Notes Editor Editor Review Editor Managing Editor Editor DAVID ABRAMOWICZ SAMEER BAJAJ BRANDON C. MASON MICHAEL CABIN BENJAMIN J. BEATON KARA MAGUIRE BRYAN MCARDLE JOHN KOERNER SHIRA KIEVAL Managing Editors KABIR MASSON CHRISTOPHER A. MULLER AMY MCCAMPHILL EMILY ROSSI ANDREW BRANTINGHAM Notes Editors ROBERT A. WEINSTOCK EMILY BUSSIGEL THANE REHN Articles Editors Essay & Review Editors SHELBY R. SCHWARTZ T. ALORA THOMAS JENNIFER PHILBRICK Alumni Liaison & Senior Editor EMILY WEISS Bluebook & Sidebar Editors Senior Editor PAWAN NELSON RONNI WEINSTEIN JESSICA KARP SCOTT BUELL Operations & Staff Development & Milligan Fellowship Librarian & Senior Editor Senior Editor Coordinator & Senior Editor Senior Editor KEVIN ANGLE EILEEN PLAZA CORY BULAND ANDREW LEGRAND RYAN REYNOLDS ETHAN FRECHETTE C. DEREK LIU BENJAMIN ROTHSTEIN KIRSTEN JACKSON ADRIANA LUCIANO NOAH SOLOWIEJCZYK Senior Editors Staff J. ROBERT ABRAHAM MARTHA U. FULFORD DAVID H. PENNINGTON HARRIET M. ANTCZAK MATTHEW GUARNIERI CAROL J. PERRY OMOLARA N. BEWAJI ANDREW S. HABER ZOE PERSHING-FOLEY ESHA BHANDARI STEPHEN F. HAYES DEVI M. RAO DANIEL W. BUTRYMOWICZ EZEKIEL L. HILL SAMUEL C. SALGANIK ADAM CARLIS AMANDA HUNGERFORD SANNU K. SHRESTHA ELEANOR G. CARR ALFONSO A. JIMENEZ ANGELA A. SMEDLEY ADRIEL I. CEPEDA DERIEUX MICHAEL C. MARTINEZ ERIN FOLEY SMITH JESSE M. CREED CAITLIN MCCUSKER JENNIFER B. SOKOLER DANA M. DELGER ADAM G. MEHES DAVID H. TUTOR ELIZABETH R. DOISY MARGOT A. MILLER CURTIS R. WALDO SCOTT A. EISMAN MINA NASSERI EMILY S. WALL ROBERT BRENT FERGUSON JEONG M. OH ADAM B. WEISS ANNA S. FLEDER MARGARET CLAIRE O’SULLIVAN CHRISTINA M. WOEHR KATHLEEN CHOJNICKI GUILLERMO CACERES´ INES´ DUBBELS Business Manager Project Coordinator Assistant Business Manager Directors of the Columbia Law Review Association, Inc. PETER BUSCEMI GILLIAN METZGER DAVID SCHIZER PETER CANELLOS NORY MILLER ARUN SUBRAMANIAN LOUIS LOWENSTEIN KARIN S. PORTLOCK, ex officio JOELLEN VALENTINE GERARD LYNCH WILLIAM SAVITT LEWIS YELIN Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1346554 \\server05\productn\C\COL\109-1\COL101.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-DEC-08 11:13 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 109 JANUARY 2009 NO. 1 ARTICLE THE FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF NATIONS Anthony J. Bellia Jr.* Bradford R. Clark** Courts and scholars have vigorously debated the proper role of custom- ary international law in American courts: To what extent should it be con- sidered federal common law, state law, or general law? The debate has reached something of an impasse, in part because various positions rely on, but also are in tension with, historical practice and constitutional structure. This Article describes the role that the law of nations actually has played throughout American history. In keeping with the original constitutional design, federal courts for much of that history enforced certain rules respect- ing other nations’ “perfect rights” (or close analogues) under the law of na- tions as an incident of political branch recognition of foreign nations, and in order to restrain the judiciary and the states from giving other nations just cause for war against the United States. Rather than viewing enforcement of the law of nations as an Article III power to fashion federal common law, federal courts have instead applied rules derived from the law of nations as a way to implement the political branches’ Article I and Article II powers to recognize foreign nations, conduct foreign relations, and decide momentous questions of war and peace. This allocation of powers approach best ex- plains the most important federal cases involving the law of nations across American history. This Article does not attempt to settle all questions of how customary international law interacts with the federal system. It does aspire, however, to recover largely forgotten historical and structural context crucial to any proper resolution of such questions. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 2 R I. THE LAW OF NATIONS AND THE ENGLISH SYSTEM ........... 9 R * Professor of Law and Notre Dame Presidential Fellow, Notre Dame Law School. ** William Cranch Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. We thank Amy Barrett, Tricia Bellia, Curt Bradley, Rachel Brewster, Paolo Carozza, Doug Cassel, Michael Collins, Lori Damrosch, Rick Garnett, Jack Goldsmith, Kent Greenawalt, Philip Hamburger, Vicki Jackson, Bill Kelley, Thomas Lee, John Manning, Maeva Marcus, Jon Molot, Henry Monaghan, David Moore, Trevor Morrison, Sean Murphy, John Nagle, Mary Ellen O’Connell, Mike Ramsey, Jonathan Siegel, Ralph Steinhardt, Ed Swaine, Amanda Tyler, Carlos Vazquez,´ Julian Velasco, and Art Wilmarth for extremely helpful suggestions; the Columbia and George Washington Law School faculties for insightful comments at workshops; Notre Dame research librarian Patti Ogden for expert assistance; Jonathan Bond, Sean Dudley, and Krista Yee for excellent research assistance; and Benjamin Beaton for careful editing. 1 \\server05\productn\C\COL\109-1\COL101.txt unknown Seq: 2 22-DEC-08 11:13 2 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 109:1 A. Defining Municipal Law and the Law of Nations ...... 11 R 1. Municipal Law ................................... 11 R 2. The Law of Nations .............................. 15 R B. Municipal Law and the Law of Nations as Rules of Decision ............................................. 20 R 1. The Law Merchant’s Adaptability ................. 20 R 2. The Law Maritime’s Sphere of Operation......... 22 R 3. The Law of State-State Relations .................. 24 R C. The Law of Nations and Crown Prerogatives in Foreign Relations ............................................ 26 R II. THE LAW OF NATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ........................................... 28 R A. The Law of Nations and Pre-constitutional State Practice .............................................. 29 R B. The Foreign Relations Powers of the Federal Political Branches ............................................ 31 R C. Foreign Relations and the Judicial Branch ............ 33 R 1. The Supremacy of Federal Enactments ........... 34 R 2. Enforcement of the Law of Nations .............. 37 R 3. Early Limitations on Judicial Enforcement ........ 44 R III. EARLY ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW OF NATIONS ............. 46 R A. The Early Debate over Federal Reception of the Common Law........................................ 47 R B. Upholding the Constitution’s Allocation of Powers . 55 R 1. Avoiding Bilateral Foreign Conflict ............... 59 R 2. Interpreting Acts of Congress .................... 62 R 3. The Ascendency of the Allocation of Powers Approach ........................................ 64 R IV. A STRUCTURAL FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF NATIONS ........ 76 R A. Pre-Erie Enforcement of the Law of Nations .......... 76 R B. Erie and the Rise of Legal Positivism.................. 80 R C. Sabbatino and the Allocation of Powers Approach ..... 84 R D. Implications and Potential Objections ................ 90 R CONCLUSION .................................................... 93 R INTRODUCTION There is an ongoing debate among courts and scholars regarding the proper role of customary international law in American courts.1 Two 1. Customary international law generally refers to law that “results from a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.” Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 102(2) (1987). Today, “customary international law” is generally used in lieu of the customary “law of nations.” See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 815 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (equating “customary international law” with “the law of nations”). In this Article, we generally use the phrase, “the law of nations” to refer to the customary law of nations as opposed to treaties. \\server05\productn\C\COL\109-1\COL101.txt unknown Seq: 3 22-DEC-08 11:13 2009] THE FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF NATIONS 3 diametrically opposed approaches