•  
  •  
 

Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

This comment asserts that mere foreign policy implications should not be enough to establish federal jurisdiction over the litigation of an otherwise exclusively state law claim, as some circuits have allowed. The Second, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have allowed such state law claims to be removed to the federal courts. The Ninth Circuit, however, rejects the proposal that the federal courts are somehow better equipped to hear cases which implicate foreign policy concerns. Questions of foreign policy are generally not the subject matter of the judicial branch, but of the legislative and executive branches. Members of Congress and of the State Department should be fielding the complaints of affected foreign nations, not the federal judiciary. Neither vigorous objection from a foreign sovereign, nor the threatened economic impact on that foreign country's gross domestic product should determine the jurisdiction of a case. Judicial presumptions of what the United States' interests might be in the realm of foreign relations should not be the dispositive factor for establishing federal jurisdiction. Out of deference to the separate branches of government and their respective roles, the federal judiciary should narrowly restrict the use of the federal common law of foreign relations as a jurisdiction-granting tool.

First Page

247

Last Page

270

Publication Date

11-1-2005

Department

College of Law

ISSN

0734-1490

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.