Alvarez vs US Case Study

Instructions

In some cases, jurisdiction is determined by territory -- is the defendant located in the court's territory, or has the defendant had "minimum contacts" with the given territory?  In this case, the U.S. attempts to invoke jurisdiction against a nonresident defendant, which is one of the classical situations in international disputes.  Is it fair to do so?  The question is a similar one when we try to file a lawsuit in the U.S. against a private company from a foreign country.  When is it fair to force another company to cross the world to defend themselves in court?In this case, you also are asked to decide what law to apply to the dispute.  Specifically, should the U.S. apply the extradition treaty with Mexico?  And, further, does this treaty prohibit abductions?  You must seek to interpret the treaty. Finally, should the U.S. base its decision on general principles of customary international law?KEY QUESTION:Do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alvarez-Machain?  Why or why not? (referring only to the jurisdictional case in 1992, not the subsequent case on application of the ATCA).  Make your position clear in the title to your post.Note that the Supreme Court split into two blocs on this case.  Justice Rehnquist wrote the "majority" opinion, which becomes law; Justice Stevens wrote the "dissent," which is a critical view that remains in the record in case similar cases come up in the future.  In essence, do you support Rehnquist's view more, or do you prefer Stevens' view?

Answer

The Supreme Court made a very ambiguous claim using the extradition treaty and international law. In defense of the Supreme Court of the United States, the court argued that there was no violation of the extradition treaty. However, the court did not also substantiate the ruling of the case with sufficient claims of the legality of the forceful abduction of the defendant. The basis of the court case was found upon the lack of jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. Ideally, the extradition treaty did not allow the abduction of the Citizens of Mexico to be brought to face criminal charges in the United States (Excerpts from Supreme Court's Decision on the Kidnapping of Foreigners par. 1). The Supreme Court was in its legal standpoint correct to ascertain a given courts jurisdiction to try the...
To avoid plagiarism, part of the answer is hidden. Click on the button below to order the full answer.
Order Answer Back
Price Calculator
Manage orders
Why we are Ranked the best
  • Unlimited Revisions
  • Free 24/7 Support and chat
  • Money back guaranteed
  • Low prices with discounts
  • Experienced writers.
  • Free Unlimited support

Hear from our customers

Get a quote Chat with support Find an expert Frequently asked questions