The Paquete Habana

The Paquete Habana; The Lola, 175 U.S.

677 (1900), was a landmark decision of
the United States Supreme Court
concerning the applicability and
recognition of international law by the
United States. The Court held that the
capture of fishing vessels as prizes of war
violated customary international law,
which is integrated with U.S. law and
binding as such.[1] Paquete Habana
influenced subsequent court decisions
that incorporated international law
regarding other matters.[2] The case is also
notable for citing a wide breadth of
historical and international sources,
including jurists from around the world
and foreign state practices going back
centuries.[3]
 Paquete Habana v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 7–8, 1899
Decided January 8, 1900
Full case name Paquete Habana.; The
Lola.
Citations 175 U.S. 677 (more)
20 S. Ct. 290; 44 L.
Ed. 320; 1900 U.S.
LEXIS 1714
Case history
Prior Appeals From the
District Court of the
United States for the
Southern District of
Florida
Subsequent None
 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 M. Harlan · Horace Gray
David J. Brewer · Henry B. Brown
George Shiras Jr. · Edward D. White
Rufus W. Peckham · Joseph McKenna
Case opinions
Majority Gray, joined by Brewer,
Brown, Shiras, White,
Peckham
Dissent Fuller, joined by
Harlan, McKenna
Background of the case
In April 1898, two fishing vessels, the
Paquete Habana and the Lola, separately
sailed from the Spanish colony of Cuba.
Both were eventually captured by
merchant vessels comprising the United
States blockade of the island, which,
unbeknownst to the crew, had been
instituted amid rising tensions between
the two countries. President William
McKinley proclaimed that the blockade
was "in pursuance of the laws of the
United States, and the law of nations
applicable to such cases."
Shortly thereafter, the Spanish–American
War was officially declared, and McKinley
issued another proclamation stating that
the war would be conducted "in harmony
with the present views of nations and
sanctioned by their recent practice" and
establishing rules for the capture of prizes;
however, there was no mention of fishing
vessels. The Paquete Habana and the Lola
were ultimately taken to Key West, Florida,
where they were auctioned by the federal
district court, which has jurisdiction over
prize cases.

Admiral William T. Sampson, who

commanded the blockade, justified the
seizures by stating that most fishing
vessels flying under the Spanish banner
were manned by well trained seamen with
prior naval experience who could be called
up to fight for Spain. The U.S. also relied
on the longstanding international practice
of capturing enemy vessels as prizes of
war.[4]

The owners of the vessels appealed to the

U.S. Supreme Court, citing a centuries-long
tradition of nations exempting fishing
vessels from prize capture, even during
war. At the time of capture, neither vessel
had evidence of aiding the enemy, no arms
were found on board, and no attempts
were made to either run the blockade or
resist capture. Pointing to McKinley's
proclamation that the blockade conformed
with international law, the claimants thus
argued that the blockade should not have
captured the vessels as prizes.

On appeal, the U.S. government argued

that it had complied with international law,
under which there was precedence for the
executive of a nation, through his military
commanders, to exercise discretion as to
whether there was an exemption of fishing
vessels from prize capture. Notably, the
government never contested that it must
abide by international law.
Both parties in the case were invoking
customary international law—the
prevailing and long-running practices and
norms that are observed and accepted by
most countries as obligations—but
differed as to what it permitted with
respect to prizes.

Decision
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Gray,
the Supreme Court ruled that coastal
fishing vessels are exempt from capture
as prizes of war under customary
international law, which, barring a
"controlling executive or judicial decision,"
must be incorporated into the corpus of
U.S. law.[3]

The Court cited lengthy legal precedents in

support of this conclusion, which it
described as an "ancient usage among
civilized nations, beginning centuries ago,
and gradually ripening into a rule of
international law."[4] In 1403, King Henry IV
of England decreed his officers leave
fisherman alone during times of war. He
then signed a treaty with France
reaffirming this act between both parties.
Similarly, in 1521, a treaty between
Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman
Empire and Francis I of France exempted
fishing vessels from capture, on the basis
that both nations would face widespread
hunger if fishermen did not feel safe to set
sail.

Justice Gray also relied on the theories

and opinions of contemporary jurists and
commentators from across the world to
buttress the Court's reasoning, decades
before such scholarly legal work would be
codified as a primary source of
international law:

[A]t the present day, by the

general consent of the civilized
nations of the world, and
independently of any express
treaty or other public act, it is
an established rule of
international law, founded on
considerations of humanity. . .
and of the mutual convenience
of belligerent states, that coast
fishing vessels, with their
implements and supplies,
cargoes and crews, unarmed
and honestly pursuing their
peaceful calling of catching and
bringing in fresh fish, are
 exempt from capture as prize of
war.[3]

Among the most oft-cited and famous

quotes of the decision concerned the
relationship of international law to
domestic U.S. law:

International law is part of our

law, and must be ascertained
and administered by the courts
of justice of appropriate
jurisdiction as often as
questions of right depending
upon it are duly presented for
their determination. For this
purpose, where there is no
treaty and no controlling
executive or legislative act or
judicial decision, resort must be
had to the customs and usages
of civilized nations, and, as
evidence of these, to the works
of jurists and commentators
who by years of labor, research,
and experience have made
themselves peculiarly well
acquainted with the subjects of
which they treat. Such works
are resorted to by judicial
 tribunals, not for the
speculations of their authors
concerning what the law ought
to be, but for trustworthy
evidence of what the law really
is.[5]

The Supreme Court decision reversed the

district court and ordered that the
proceeds of the auctions, as well as any
profits made from the vessels' cargo, be
restored to the claimants "with damages
and costs."

Fuller's dissent …
Justice Fuller delivered a dissenting
opinion, which was joined by Justices
Harlan and McKenna.[6] Fuller essentially
agreed with the federal government's
position, arguing that the capture of
fishing vessels as prizes was both in
accordance with customary international
law and militarily necessarily, and that any
exemption is under the discretion of the
President as the nation's executive.

See also
Garcia-Mir v. Meese
List of United States Supreme Court
cases, volume 175
References
1. John O. McGinnis and Ilya Somin,
"Should International Law Be Part of
Our Law?" Stanford Law Review at 59
STAN. L. REV. 1175 (2007),
[www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/mc
ginnis.pdf
www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/mc
ginnis.pdf]
2. Stucky, Scott W. (1985) "The Paquete
Habana: A Case History in the
Development of International Law,"
University of Baltimore Law Review:
 Vol. 15: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at:
http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr
/vol15/iss1/2
3. Stucky, Scott (1985-01-01). "The
Paquete Habana: A Case History in the
Development of International Law" .
University of Baltimore Law Review. 15
(1): 30–31. ISSN 0091-5440 .
4. Dodge, William S. (2005-11-14). "The
Story of the Paquete Habana:
Customary International Law as Part
of Our Law". Rochester, NY.
SSRN 847847 .
5. Eric George Reeves, United States V.
Ja Vino: Reconsidering The
 Relationship Of Customary
International Law To Domestic Law, 50
Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 877 (1993),
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu
/wlulr/vol50/iss2/17
. Wikisource contributors (2017-12-22),
"The_Paquete_Habana/Dissent_Fuller
" , Wikisource, Wikimedia Foundation,
retrieved 2019-05-02

External links
Works related to The Paquete Habana
at Wikisource
Text of The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S.
677 (1900) is available
 from: Findlaw   Justia   Library of
Congress  
The Paquete Habana Case Brief
Abridged version of the case

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=The_Paquete_Habana&oldid=994252753"

Last edited 4 months ago by Monkbot

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.