Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T00:19:25.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Johnson v. Eisentrager

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , October 1950 , pp. 773 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

4 Petition for rehearing, filed July 19, 1950 (No. 13, Original), was denied on Oct. 16,1950. In the companion case of United States v. State of Louisiana, 339 U. S. 699, involving no historical claim such as that of Texas, the Court followed United States v.California, 332 TJ. 8. 19 (1947) in holding that the Federal Government rather than the State had paramount rights over the sea-bed and subsoil, the only difference from the California case being that Louisiana had asserted rights 24 miles seaward of the three-mile belt. Douglas, J., said that: “We intimate no opinion on the power of a State to extend, define, or establish its external territorial limits or on the consequencesof any such extension vis d vis persons other than the United States or those acting on behalf of or pursuant to its authority. . . . If, as we held in California's case, the three-mile belt is in the domain of the nation rather than that of the separate States,it follows a fortiori that the ocean beyond that limit also is. The ocean seaward ofthe marginal belt is perhaps even more directly related to the national defense, theconduct of foreign affairs, and world commerce than is the marginal sea.” Petition for rehearing in this case (No. 12, Original) also was denied on Oct. 16, 1950.

1 Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, this JOURNAL, Vol. 37 (1943), p. 152.

2 In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, ibid., Vol. 40 (1946), p. 432.

3 Black, Douglas, and Burton, JJ., dissented.

1 Ahmed Safwat Bey, “The Egyptian Prize Court,” Bevue 6gyptienne de Droit International, Vol. 5 (1949), p. 28. Summaries of various decisions were also made available by Mr. Wm. R. Vallanee of Washington, D. C.

2 Feb. 2, 1949. Revue Egyptienne de Droit International, Vol. 5 (1949), p. 141.