Does the constitution follow the flag?: the evolution of territoriality in American law PDF
Preview Does the constitution follow the flag?: the evolution of territoriality in American law
Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? This page intentionally left blank DOES THE CONSTITUTION FOLLOW THE FLAG? The Evolution of Territoriality in American Law Kal Raustiala 1 2009 3 OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,publishesworksthatfurther OxfordUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellence inresearch,scholarship,andeducation. Oxford NewYork Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto Withofficesin Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright#2009byOxfordUniversityPress,Inc. PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,Inc. 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016 www.oup.com OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress. Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced, storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans, electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise, withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Raustiala,Kal. Doestheconstitutionfollowtheflag?/KalRaustiala p. cm. Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN978-0-19-530459-6 1. Conflictoflaws—Jurisdiction—UnitesStates. 2. UnitesStates—Foreign relations—Lawandlegislation. 3. Effectivenessandvalidityoflaw—UnitesStates. 4. Exterritoriality. 5. Aliens—Legalstatus,laws,etc.—UnitedStates. 6. Americans—Legalstatus,laws,etc.—UnitedStates. I. Title. KF413.J87R38 2009 342.73’0413—dc22 2009003557 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica onacid-freepaper PREFACE This book is about the way that geography shapes legal rules and under- standings—and how fundamental changes in American power and in world politics have challenged and sometimes altered the traditionally territorial system of American law. Do U.S. laws stop at the water’s edge? Ifnot,dotheyoperatedifferentlybeyondAmericanterritory?Atonelevel, thesequestionsarenarrowandlawyerly,andthereisindeedalargelegal literature on these topics. At another level, however, the nature of the connection between law and land raises profoundly significant political, economic,andsocialquestions. ManyofushavewatchedfootageofCubanrefugeesswimmingashorein Florida,desperatelytryingtoreachlandbeforeAmericanofficialscangrasp them.Underwhatisknownasthe‘‘wetfoot–dryfoot’’policy,touchingthe territory of the United States—the dry soil itself—is critical to the legal determinationoftheirstatus:thedifferencebetweenanewlifeintheUnited StatesandaforcedreturntoCuba.Thisisadramaticexampleofthepower ofterritory,butnotanunusualone.ThelawsofJapandifferfromthoseof the United States, and hence even in a supposedly ‘‘flat’’ and globalizing worldAmericansinJapanexpecttobesubjecttoJapaneselaw.Thespatial dimensionoflawexistsevenwithintheUnitedStates:Nevadapermitsacts banned in Utah, and thus crossing the state line alters what is and is not legal.Inadeepsenselegalpowerisdefinedterritorially,andhasbeensince the sovereign state came into being in seventeenth-century Europe. The basicjurisdictionalprincipleisasimpleone:whereyouaredetermineswhat rulesyouaregovernedby. Yet, perhaps precisely because this principle of territoriality is so com- monplace,itisrarelyexaminedandsurprisinglyilldefended.Unlikesover- eignty—thesubjectofyardsofshelfspaceinanygoodlibrary—territoriality has not been the topic of much debate outside of geography departments. Writing in the mid-1990s, the influential political scientist John Ruggie declared that ‘‘it is truly astonishing that the concept of territoriality has been so little studied by students of international politics.’’1 Fifteen years lateritremainslittlestudied. Thisisonereasoneventsthatforceattentiontotheterritorialnatureof legalrulescausesomuchdisagreementandconfusion.Considerthecurrent debate over the rights of suspected terrorists held in the American naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In recent years the federal courts have grappled with the question of whether these detainees have any constitu- tionalrightsatall,orwhetherinsteadtheyare,ascriticscharge,trappedin anoffshore‘‘legalblackhole.’’ The answer turns very much on how we understand the fundamental geographyofAmericanlaw.AsIwilldemonstrate,suchquestionsarenot new and they surface more frequently than one might imagine. Whether U.S.lawappliedinoccupiedMexicancities,federalterritoriesintheWest, ‘‘Indian country,’’ or offshore consular courts; whether it restricts law enforcementabroad,regulatesforeignstockmanipulators,orgovernsmili- tarydependentsinoverseasbases—theseandotherissueshaverepeatedly arisen throughout American history. The complex, interdependent world we live in today has simply multiplied and deepened the challenges to territoriality;ithasnotcreatedthem. Thisbookhasseveralaims.Thefirstistoexplainwhyterritorialityisa significant concept and why the American legal system, like other legal systems, has traditionally been presumptively territorial. I say ‘‘presump- tively’’becauseterritorialityisnotanironcladprinciple,norisitunchan- ging.Butitisessentialtotheunderstandingofsovereigntythathasbeenin place more or less since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Territoriality grounds political power in control over space. Because jurisdiction is a foundational concept in law, legal rules are an excellent window on the evolutionofterritoriality.IfocusinthisbookonAmericanlegalrulesnot because the paradigm of territoriality is unique to the United States— territoriality is a fundamental principle of the international system—but because the United States is enormously significant and because, as an Americanprofessoroflaw,itisthelegalsystemIknowbest. Mysecond aimistotrace, inverybroadbrushstrokes,theevolutionof territorialityinAmericanlawfromthefoundingeratotoday.Territoriality has always been an important principle, but as a practice, as well as a principle,ithasacomplicatedpast(andanevenmorecomplicatedpresent). It arises in myriad ways, such as whether the Environmental Protection AgencycanregulatepollutersinCanada,whetherU.S.antitrustlawapplies to foreign firms affecting U.S. markets, or whether FBI agents must read Miranda warnings to suspects abroad. These varied issues are not new or vi PREFACE unknown, but to date they have been addressed separately. This book shows that all share a common core in our assumptions about, and responsesto,theterritorialnatureofsovereignty. My final aim is to advance several claims about the evolution of terri- toriality. First, extraterritoriality has shown surprising continuity in its purposeevenasitsformhaschanged.Extraterritorialitymeantverydiffer- ent things to nineteenth-century lawyers than it does to contemporary lawyers. But despite dramatic changes in form, the primary function of extraterritorialityhasremainedmuchthesame.Thatfunction,Iargue,isto manage and minimize the legal differences entrenched by Westphalian sovereignty. Second, extraterritoriality is paralleled by what I call intraterritoriality. Just as extraterritoriality has long been a way to conceptually redraw maps,toredefinewhatisinsideandoutsidethescopeofasovereign’slaw, intraterritoriality has served to delineate differences within national borders, particularly as the United States grew in size and power. Intra- territorial doctrines, such as the claim that some constitutional rights do not apply in some American territory, reflect the tension between the demands of liberal constitutionalism and the imperatives of global power politics. This tension was dramatically evidenced when, as a rising great power, the United States acquired an overseas empire a century ago. But it continues to play out today, as the debate over Guantanamo amply illustrates. ThroughoutthisbookIpaycloseattentiontotheinternationalcontext, andparticularlytothechangingglobalroleoftheUnitedStates.Asaweak power, the United States showed solicitude for traditional Westphalian principles of territoriality. As a superpower, it was far more willing to bendandevenbreakestablisheddoctrine.Thistransformation,andrelated shiftsininternationalpoliticsandeconomics,helpedtoshapethekindsof territorial claims that were made, even if the fundamental aim of these claims—tomanageandsometimesmanipulatelegaldifferences—remained broadlyconstant. In short, this book offers a framework that connects a disparate set of territorialrulesandpracticesandexplorestheirpurposeandfunction.My overarching goal is to make sense of a world in which the United States appliesitslawtosomeactorsinsomeplaceswhiledenyingittootheractors in other places. I do not claim to offer a comprehensive theory of the evolutionofterritoriality;thetopicistoocomplextobeexplainedsatisfac- torily by a few master variables. Instead, I have written an account that Ihopebringsclaritytothetopic,thatlinksitspoliticalandlegalaswellas domestic and international aspects, and that helps to ground current de- batesinanhistoricalcontext. PREFACE vii This page intentionally left blank ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The genesis of this book rests with a student’s question, many years ago, abouthowthedoctrinesofjurisdictionwithininternationallawfitwiththe constitutional treatment of Puerto Rico. From there I began to read more abouttheAmericanimperialadventureoftheearlytwentiethcenturyand, increasingly, tosee theparallels between theseolder historicepisodesand the then-emerging effort to detain foreign nationals outside American territory in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Soon, and with the urging of others,Ibegantothinkaboutabookonthesetopics. OverthemanyyearsthatIexploredtheseissuesIhaveincurrednumer- ous debts, but have also had the great pleasure of working with many excellent scholars and students. At Princeton, where I spent the 2002–3 academic year in the Law and Public Affairs Program at the Woodrow Wilson School, I began the early stages of this project. I thank Princeton foritssupportandinparticularthankourleaderatLAPA,ChrisEisgruber, whoinculcatedawonderfulspiritofinquiryandgaveussubstantialfreedom tothinkandwrite.VisitsatHarvardLawSchool,ColumbiaLawSchool,and theUniversityofChicagoLawSchoolgavemenewcolleaguestoengageand manynewideas.AndwiththesupportofmyDeanatUCLA,MichaelSchill, I convened a smallinterdisciplinary workshoponterritorialityatUCLAin 2006,whichprovidedmeawealthofnewissuestoconsider.Overthelast fewyearsIhavepresentedaspectsofthisprojectatmanyinstitutionsaround NorthAmerica,includingPrinceton,Columbia,Harvard,Hofstra,Berkeley, Chicago,Duke,SMU,theUniversityofBritishColumbia,Georgetown,Penn, theRANDCorporation,andUCLA.Ithankthemanyparticipantsatallthese talksfortheirhelpfulandconstructivefeedback. Anearlyandbriefversionofmyargumentappearedaspartofavolume editedbyMilesKahlerandBarbaraWalter,titledTerritorialityandConflictin
The list of books you might like
