Acts of state

TLDR: The Act of State doctrine has been applied in the United States primarily in the context of foreign expropriations in which a governmental act is alleged to have violated the applicable norms of international law.

Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter discusses laws on Acts of State. The Act of State doctrine has been applied in the United States primarily in the context of foreign expropriations in which a governmental act is alleged to have violated the applicable norms of international law. As originally formulated in Underbill v. Hernandez, the doctrine provided that “the courts in one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of another done within its territory.” This essentially territorially based conception of State sovereignty and jurisdiction was restricted to circumstances involving property situated in the expropriating State's territory; thus, it left American courts free to inquire into the international legality of foreign expropriations in their purported extra territorial reach, allowing them eventually to deny effect to decrees found wanting at international law. In the later Sabbatino Case, this restriction on the scope of the doctrine was retained even though the Court's only concern was that judicial decisions may restrict executive discretion in the conduct of international relations. The retention of this distinction is somewhat puzzling, however, as the potential for judicial interference with executive policy options would appear just as great where the expropriated property was originally outside the expropriating State's territory.