Wilson v. Girard
354 US 524 (1957)
Procedural History:
Appeal from an injunction against extradition.
Overview:
-Girard (D), a Specialist Third Class in the United States Army, wounded a Japanese woman during a military exercise in Japan.
-A security treaty between Japan and the United States authorized the making of administrative agreements between the two governments concerning the conditions that would govern the disposition of the United States Armed Forces in Japan. Such an agreement provided that the United States might waive its jurisdiction over offenses committed in Japan by members of its armed forces. Subsequently, another protocol agreement was signed by the two governments, pursuant to the NATO agreement.
-Agreement authorized that in criminal cases where the right to jurisdiction is concurrent, the military authorities of the United States would have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the armed forces for offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.
-The United States claimed the right to try Girard (D) on the ground that his act was done in the performance of official duty giving the United States primary jurisdiction.
-Japan insisted that Girard's (D) action was not within the scope of his official duty and therefore it had the primary right of jurisdiction.
-The United States ultimately waived whatever jurisdiction it might have. Girard (D) sought a writ of habeas corpus that was denied, but he was granted an injunction against delivery to the Japanese authorities.
-Wilson (P), Secretary of Defense, appealed.
Issue:
Does a sovereign nation have exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender its jurisdiction?
Rule:
A sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender its jurisdiction
Analysis:
-The trend toward granting limited immunities in cases relating to official acts and archives appears to be on the increase. This is to be distinguished from the normal diplomatic immunities that are part of customary international law.
-The agreements between the United States and Japan are good examples of the willingness of one nation to grant a special position to foreign government employees.
Outcome:
-A sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against it committed within its borders, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender its jurisdiction.
-Japan's cession to the United States of jurisdiction to try American military personnel for conduct constituting an offense against the laws of both countries was conditioned by the protocol agreement, which provided that "the authorities of the state having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other state for a waiver of its right in cases where that other state considers such a waiver to be of particular importance." Furthermore, there has been no prohibition against this under the Constitution or legislation subsequent to the security treaty. In the absence of such statutory or constitutional barriers, the wisdom of the arrangement is exclusively for the determination of the executive and legislative branches. These branches have decided to waive jurisdiction and deliver Girard (D) to the Japanese authorities. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is reversed.
Link to case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12447782570439695587&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
354 US 524 (1957)
Procedural History:
Appeal from an injunction against extradition.
Overview:
-Girard (D), a Specialist Third Class in the United States Army, wounded a Japanese woman during a military exercise in Japan.
-A security treaty between Japan and the United States authorized the making of administrative agreements between the two governments concerning the conditions that would govern the disposition of the United States Armed Forces in Japan. Such an agreement provided that the United States might waive its jurisdiction over offenses committed in Japan by members of its armed forces. Subsequently, another protocol agreement was signed by the two governments, pursuant to the NATO agreement.
-Agreement authorized that in criminal cases where the right to jurisdiction is concurrent, the military authorities of the United States would have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the armed forces for offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.
-The United States claimed the right to try Girard (D) on the ground that his act was done in the performance of official duty giving the United States primary jurisdiction.
-Japan insisted that Girard's (D) action was not within the scope of his official duty and therefore it had the primary right of jurisdiction.
-The United States ultimately waived whatever jurisdiction it might have. Girard (D) sought a writ of habeas corpus that was denied, but he was granted an injunction against delivery to the Japanese authorities.
-Wilson (P), Secretary of Defense, appealed.
Issue:
Does a sovereign nation have exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender its jurisdiction?
Rule:
A sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against its laws committed within its borders, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender its jurisdiction
Analysis:
-The trend toward granting limited immunities in cases relating to official acts and archives appears to be on the increase. This is to be distinguished from the normal diplomatic immunities that are part of customary international law.
-The agreements between the United States and Japan are good examples of the willingness of one nation to grant a special position to foreign government employees.
Outcome:
-A sovereign nation has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses against it committed within its borders, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to surrender its jurisdiction.
-Japan's cession to the United States of jurisdiction to try American military personnel for conduct constituting an offense against the laws of both countries was conditioned by the protocol agreement, which provided that "the authorities of the state having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other state for a waiver of its right in cases where that other state considers such a waiver to be of particular importance." Furthermore, there has been no prohibition against this under the Constitution or legislation subsequent to the security treaty. In the absence of such statutory or constitutional barriers, the wisdom of the arrangement is exclusively for the determination of the executive and legislative branches. These branches have decided to waive jurisdiction and deliver Girard (D) to the Japanese authorities. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is reversed.
Link to case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12447782570439695587&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
No comments:
Post a Comment