Take-home Questions for POL 337

Both questions are from the material covered in chapters 9, 11, and 12 of the von Glahn-Taulbee text. Answer each question in a concise, well-organized essay of two type-written pages or less. I will not read more than two pages per essay. (Thus, you will give me no more than four pages of answers on Wednesday: two answers times two pages equals four pages (or less) total.) Use the normal margins, double-spacing, and 12-point type. Use your I.D. number not your name: I want complete anonymity. Hand in the hard copies when you arrive for the final on Wednesday, December 14^th at 3:00pm.

Question 1. Transportation Canada (“TC”) is a company solely owned by the Canadian government that manages the airline (Air Canada), railroad (Canadian Pacific), and shipping interests (Northern Hemisphere Shipping) owned by the Canadian government. TC’s United States headquarters is in Alexandria, Virginia. In 2010 S&J Real Estate (Plaintiff) brought a lawsuit (an action) against TC and also the Government of Canada (Defendants) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal court of the United States, alleging that TC failed to pay S&J more than $100,000 in rent owed on the lease of the Alexandria office space. Both Defendants claimed sovereign immunity from the suit.

a. Based on the facts as given above, do the two defendants have valid claims of immunity? Why? What rule(s) applies? (Look at TC’s claim first; then look at the claim of the Government of Canada.) Cite the page or pages of the text that support your answers in parentheses at the end of your sentences. For example, (200).

b. Suppose the case had been brought in 1920 instead of 2010. Would TC and Canada have had valid claims of sovereign immunity then? Why?

c. Returning to 2010, suppose (in the 2010, not 1920, action) that TC was only partially owned by the Canadian Government. Would the immunity claims of TC and Canada be valid? What rule or test would you apply?

d. Suppose the headquarters had actually been used by the Canadian government for official government actions—consular, intelligence, and other diplomatic activity. Would TC and Canada have valid claims of immunity? Why? What rule(s) applies?

Question 2. Some, but not all, legal disputes between nations go to court. Consider the following:

a. On what basis could the United States make actions (1) by non-citizens (2) that take place completely in a foreign country subject to United States criminal law and United States courts?

b. Suppose United States prosecutors identified certain aliens residing in Mexico as violators of such a criminal law as described in Part “a” above. What would the United States legally have to show or prove in order to get the aliens to stand trial in a United States court? (Hint: There are several things.) Would a United States-Mexico treaty be absolutely necessary? Why?

c. Suppose that without waiting for Mexico to act, the United States were to send commandos to Mexico to physically remove the alien suspects from Mexico and return them to the United States. What could Mexico do under international law for the aliens?

d. Suppose further that after removing the aliens from Mexico, as described in Part “C” above, the United States imprisons the aliens without a trial in violation of Mexican law and in violation of United States law. If Mexico wished to challenge the United States, how should Mexico proceed?

e. Finally, if Mexico proceeded against the United States in a court—Mexican, American, or international—what rule of international law could the United States use in defense of its actions as described in Parts (c) and (d) above? What could Mexico reasonably argue in response?