This article does not advocate judicial abstention from deciding the constitutional claims of foreign sovereigns. Rather, the argument is that constitutional claims against the actions of the federal political branches must fail on the merits because of the relationship of foreign states to the federal structure. When, on the other hand, a claim does not directly confront or conflict with the political branches' foreign policy, the federal courts should adjudicate the merits of foreign state claims by applying constitutional jurisprudence to sustain or reject the claim. Part III of this article elaborates upon the relationship between the thesis in Part II and concepts such as the political question doctrine, the application of the thesis to actions in which only the executive branch is involved, and the implications of the thesis for corporate and individual representatives of foreign states.
Constitutional Law | International Relations | Law
Lori F. Damrosch,
Foreign States and the Constitution,
Va. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4119