Courts as "Teachers in a Vital National Seminar" on Human Rights (From World Justice? U.S. Courts and International Human Rights, P 81-105, 1991, Mark Gibney, ed. -- See NCJ-129558)

• NCJ Number: 129562
• Author(s): M Gibney
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 25 pages
• Sale Source: Westview Press, Inc
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

When citizens of other countries bring suits to U.S. courts alleging human rights violations by the U.S. government, the courts should act as a moral check on our political institutions.

Abstract

In Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan (1985), a group of Nicaraguan civilians sued U.S. officials for the human rights violations occasioned by U.S. foreign policy forays in that country. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages for personal harm suffered as well as declaratory and injunctive relief that would prohibit further U.S. military involvement in Nicaragua. The Federal district court dismissed the action, holding that "In order to adjudicate the tort claims of the Nicaraguan plaintiffs, we would have to determine the precise nature of the United States government's involvement in the affairs of several Central American nations, namely, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Nicaragua." The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed this result but based its holding on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. U.S. courts, almost without exception, have refrained from assuming a central role in international human rights litigation. The apparent judicial fear is that litigation raising international human rights concerns will involve the courts in complex foreign affairs initiated and implemented by the political branches. Internationally, the U.S. courts should assume the same role the judicial branch fulfills domestically, i.e., to interpret the laws by which all U.S. citizens and institutions are to abide. 81 notes