Whitney v.

Robertson

Fact Summary. The claim which Whitney (P) brought before the court was that a treaty between the U.S
and the Dominican Republic guaranteed that no higher duty would be assessed on goods from the
Dominican Republic than was assessed on goods from any other country and that duties had been
wrongfully assessed on his sugar imports.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where a treaty and an act of legislation conflict, the one last in date will control.

Issue: Where a treaty and an act of legislation conflict, will the one last in date control?

Held. (Field, J.). Yes. The one with a later date will control where a treaty and an act of legislation conflict.
The act of congress under which the duties were collected was passed after the treaty and therefore is
controlling. Affirmed.

Discussion. A later inconsistent statute does not abrogate or repeal a treaty. The treaty still exists as an
international obligation although the terms of the treaty may not be enforceable.

Head Money Cases Edye v. Robertson 112 U.S. 580 (1884)

Facts:

In 1882 the Congress passed an act providing that a duty of fifty cents should be collected for each and
every passenger who was not a citizen of the United States, coming from a foreign port to any port
within the United States. Individuals and steamship companies brought suit against the collector of
customs at New York, Mr. WH Robertson, for the recovery of the sums of money collected. The act was
challenge on the grounds that it violated numerous treaties of the US government with friendly nations.

Issue:

WON the act is void because of the conflict with the treaty.

Ruling:

A treaty is a compact between independent nations, which depends for its enforcement upon the
interest and honor of the governments that are parties to a treaty. Treaties that regulate the mutual
rights of citizens and subjects of the contracting nations are in the same category as acts of Congress.
When these rights are of such a nature as to be enforced by a court of justice, the court resorts to the
treaty as it would to a statute. However, a constitution gives a treaty no superiority over an act on
congress. In short, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the
subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass
for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.
Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland)

Brief Fact Summary. Because some circumstances changed, Iceland (D) claimed that a fishing treaty it
had with the United Kingdom (P) was no longer applicable.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order that a change of circumstances may give rise to the premise calling for
the termination of a treaty, it is necessary that it has resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of
the obligations still to be performed.

Facts. Icelands (D) claim to a 12-mile fisheries limit was recognized by the United Kingdom (P) in 1961 in
return for Icelands (D) agreement that any dispute concerning Icelandic fisheries jurisdiction beyond the
12-mile limit be referred to the International Court of Justice. An application was filed before the I.C.J.
when Iceland (D) proposed to extend its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction from 12 to 50 miles around its
shores in 1972. By postulating that changes in circumstances since the 12-mile limit was now generally
recognized was the ground upon which Iceland (D) stood to argue that the agreement was no longer
valid. Iceland (D) also asserted that there would be a failure of consideration for the 1961 agreement.

Issue. In order that a change of circumstances may give rise to a ground for invoking the termination of a
treaty, is it necessary that it has resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of the obligation still
to be performed?

Held. Yes. In order that a change of circumstances may give rise to the premise calling for the
termination of a treaty, it is necessary that it has resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of the
obligations still to be performed.

The change of circumstances alleged by Iceland (D) cannot be said to have transformed radically the
extent of the jurisdictional obligation that was imposed in the 1961 Exchange of Notes.

Discussion. Recourse to the I.C.J. in the event of a dispute was the original agreement between the
parties. The economy of Iceland (D) is dependent on fishing. The merit of Iceland (D) argument was not
reached by the Court in this case, however, but rather dealt with the jurisdictional issues.