Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T10:28:50.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sovereigns as Defendants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Nathan Wolfman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A recent decision handed down by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and reported in its last published report, involves the broad consideration of the status of sovereigns as defendants both from the point of view of international and of municipal law. The decision concretely confirms the opinion that no matter from what point of view the theory of international law may be said to proceed, its doctrines are based on as firm principles of sound reasoning and justice as are the doctrines of the ordinary municipal law. And this notwithstanding the popular impression prevalent, especially among laymen, that international comity is the dominant principle of international law.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 1910 , pp. 373 - 383
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 Mason v. Intercolonial Railway of Canada, 197 Mass. 349 (1908); see this Journal, 3:224.

2 Briggs v. Light-boats, 11 Allen (Mass.), 157; The Constitution, L. R., 4 P. D., 39; Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 7 Cranch, 116; Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain, 17 Q. B., 171.

3 Mason v. Intercolonial Ry., supra.

4 The Parlement Beige, L. R., 5 Prob. Div., 197 (1880); De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B., 196.

5 James, L. J., in Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 14 Law Times, 199.

6 1 Q. B., 149.

7 Bar: International Law, p. 614.

8 3 Sumner (U. S.), 308.

9 7 Cranch (U. S.), 116.

10 Law Reports, Court of Appeals, 5 Probate Division, 197 (1878).

11 L. R., 4 Ad. & Ec, 59.

12 Story, sec. 542A.

13 Vattel, vol. 2, secs. 213, 214; Gand, 12.

14 Bar : International Law, 614.

15 14 C. B., 487, 522.

16 Bar : International Law, supra.

17 Chitty: Prerogatives of the Crown, p. 5; Broom: Legal Maxims, p. 53; Todd: Parliamentary Government in British Colonies, p. 1; Kent’s Commentaries, pp. 479, 480.

18 The Queen v. McLeod, 8 Canada Supreme Court Reports, 2 (1880).

19 Tindley v. Salem, 137 Mass., 171; Childs v. Boston, 4 Allen (Mass.), 41 at 53; Mayor of New York v. Furze, 3 Hill, 616; Eastman v. Merredith, 36 N. H., 284; Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass., 489 at 500.

20 Henry v. Lyme, 5 Bingham, 91; Nebraska v. Campbell, 2 Black, 590; Bigelow v. Randolph, 14 Gray (Mass.), 543; Merrifield v. Worcester, 110 Mass., 216; Murphy v. Lowell, 123 Mass. 564 at 567.

21 122 Mass., 344, 358, 359, 365, 374, 375.

22 3 Hill, 531, 539.

23 31 Penn. State, 185, at. 189.

24 H. N., 204, at 210.

25 158 Mass., 509.

26 Plowden’s Reports, 465 (1574).