The Paquete Habana

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Paquete Habana v. United States
FullName=Paquete Habana.; The Lola.
ArgueDateA=November 7
ArgueDateB=8
ArgueYear=1899
DecideDate=January 8
DecideYear=1900
USVol=175
USPage=677
Citation=20 S. Ct. 290; 44 L. Ed. 320; 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1714
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
SCOTUS=1898-1902
Majority=Gray
JoinMajority=Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, Peckham
Dissent=Fuller
JoinDissent=Harlan, McKenna
LawsApplied=

"Paquete Habana.; The Lola", 175 U.S. 677 (1900), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that reversed an earlier court decision allowing the capture of fishing vessels under Prize (law). Its importance rests on the fact that it integrated Customary international law with American law, perhaps the quintessential position of those who hold a monist perspective of international law.

Background of the case

In April 1898 two fishing vessels, the Paquete Habana, and the Lola separately left Cuban ports in Havana in order to fish. The two vessels were eventually captured by US Naval vessels as part of Admiral Sampson's blockade of Cuba, who was ordered to execute the blockade 'in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and the "law of nations" applicable to such cases.'. The vessels were placed within Cuba's territorial waters at the onset of the Spanish-American War and then taken to Key West, where both vessels were eventually auctioned by the district court.

Admiral Sampson justified the seizures by stating that most fishing vessels, flying under the Spanish banner were manned by excellent seamen, "liable for further service" as naval reserves, an asset that could eventually be used against US interests in the Spanish American War.

The owners of the vessels however made an appeal to the circuit courts, citing a long held tradition by nations of exempting fishing vessels from prize capture in times of war. This "tradition", a primary example of customary international law, dates back from an order by Henry VI in 1403, and have more or less been observed by a large majority of States ever since.

At the time of capture both vessels had no evidence of aiding the enemy, and were unaware of the US naval blockade. No arms were found on board, and no attempts were made to either run the blockade or resist capture.

The Court's decision

The court, citing lengthy legal precedents established in support of the existence of a customary international law that exempted fishing vessels from prize capture eventually found the capture of both vessels as "unlawful and without probable cause", and thus reversed the District Court's decision, and ordered the proceeds of the auction as well as any profits made from her cargo to be restored to the claimant, "with damages and costs".

Fuller's dissent

Justice Fuller delivered a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Harlan and McKenna.

ubsequent developments

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 175

References

*caselaw source
case="The Paquete Habana", 175 U.S. 677 (1899)
enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./175/677/
findlaw=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=175&page=677
* [http://home.att.net/~slomansonb/PaqHab.html Abridged version of the case]