INTERNATIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2008
Assignment #25

3. International Comity

HILTON V. GUYOT, p. 802 (US 1895): what is “international comity”? Is it a rule of law?

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. CALIFORNIA, p. 803 (US 1993)

1. what is the nature of the dispute?

2. what is the basis of application of US law?

3. what other country has jurisdiction to prescribe with respect to the conduct at issue?

a. on what basis?

b. is there a “true conflict” between its rules and the US rules?

c. Should that matter to a US court deciding whose law to apply?

4. How would the court resolve the conflict if there were one?

a. How does “international comity” differ from “balancing”? See Laker Airways, n. 1 p. 811f

b. Is it clear that Hartford Fire repudiates Timberlane?

c. Compare Restatement of Foreign Relations Law §403, as described by Justice Scalia in his dissent, pp. 809ff.

5. If U.S. courts are too aggressive, what responses might other countries make?

a. refuse to recognize judgment?

b. authorize counter-judgment? e.g., “blocking laws”, n. 3 p. 812

4. Forum non Conveniens

PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. V. REYNO, p. 814 (U.S. 1981)

1. What kind of jurisdiction is involved here? Is it different from the previous cases?

2. Is it clear whose law would apply to the merits of the case

a. if it stayed in the US?

b. If it moves to Scotland?

3. On what ground is it decided that the US court should not exercise jurisdiction?

4. Will the action in fact be filed in Scotland by these plaintiffs? Should that matter?

Janis on the Bhopal Case, p. 824 (1987)

1) Who is seeking relief in US courts? On what theory of jurisdiction?

2) On what ground does the plaintiff resist dismissal? Should it be relevant?