The Paquete Habana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Paquete Habana v. United States | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||||
| Argued November 7 – 8, 1899 Decided January 8, 1900 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||||
| Federal courts could look to customary international law because it is an integrated part of American law | ||||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Melville Fuller Associate Justices: John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White, Rufus Wheeler Peckham, Joseph McKenna |
||||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||||
| Majority by: Gray Dissent by: Fuller Joined by: Harlan, Mckenna |
Paquete Habana.; The Lola, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that reversed an earlier court decision allowing the capture of fishing vessels under Prize (law). Its importance rests on the fact that it integrated Customary international law with American law, perhaps the quintessential position of those who hold a monist perspective of international law.
Contents |
[edit] Background of the case
In April of 1898 two fishing vessels, the Paquete Habana, and the Lola separately left Cuban ports in Havana in order to fish. The two vessels were eventually captured by US Naval vessels as part of Admiral Sampson's blockade of Cuba, who was ordered to execute the blockade 'in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and the law of nations applicable to such cases.'. The vessels were placed within Cuba's territorial waters at the onset of the Spanish-American War and then taken to Key West, where both vessels were eventually auctioned by the district court.
Admiral Sampson justified the seizures by stating that most fishing vessels, flying under the Spanish banner were manned by excellent seamen, "liable for further service" as naval reserves, an asset that could eventually be used against US interests in the Spanish American War.
The owners of the vessels however made an appeal to the circuit courts, citing a long held tradition by nations of exempting fishing vessels from prize capture in times of war. This "tradition", a primary example of customary international law, dates back from an order by Henry VI in 1403, and have more or less been observed by a large majority of States ever since.
At the time of capture both vessels had no evidence of aiding the enemy, and were unaware of the US naval blockade. No arms were found on board, and no attempts were made to either run the blockade or resist capture.
[edit] The Court's decision
The court, citing lengthy legal precedents established in support of the existence of a customary international law that exempted fishing vessels from prize capture eventually found the capture of both vessels as "unlawful and without probable cause", and thus reversed the District Court's decision, and ordered the proceeds of the auction as well as any profits made from her cargo to be restored to the claimant, "with damages and costs".
[edit] Fuller's dissent
Justice Fuller delivered a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Harlan and McKenna.
