CASE ANALYSIS ON PAQUETE HABANA V. UNITED STATES (1900)

Abstract

Before international law followed the doctrine of jus in bello and jus ad bellum, it followed the doctrine of ‘just war theory’. This doctrine is a traditional doctrine that provides the military ethics that had to be followed by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policy makers. This doctrine ensures that war is morally justified in its means and methods and ensures that military and other categories of authorities and entities that are governed by this doctrine follows the principles of this doctrine and upholds the same. 

The status of Customary International Law in the US legal system is uncertain.  The US Constitution does not make any reference to Customary Laws in its provisions and has only a limited reference of it.  However, throughout the 19th and 20th Century, the United States Courts have applied Customary International Law without the requirement of it first being codified by the Congress. The Court also referred to it as a part of its law. It treats International Law as having the status of general common law, that is, a law that is neither federal law nor state law and is applicable only in the absence of a contrary domestic law. 

One such case that was governed by this doctrine of just war and Customary International Law is The Paquete Habana case . This case is a landmark case of the US Supreme Court regarding the applicability and recognition of Customary International Law by the United States. The Court ruled that the capture of fishing vessel by the US Military, as a Prize of War, is a violation of the Customary International Law and ordered the release of the two captured fishing vessels.