Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 14

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

sia]  or  abroad.”    Id.,  at  220  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).    This  Court  determined  that  “the  evidence  sup-
ported  [a]  finding”  that  “the  Commissariat  for  Justice 
ha[d]  power  to  interpret  existing  Russian  law.”    Ibid.  
“That being true,” the Court concluded, the “official decla-
ration [wa]s conclusive so far as the intended extraterrito-
rial effect of the Russian decree [wa]s concerned.”  Ibid. 
  This  Court’s  treatment  of  the  Commissariat’s  submis-
sion  as  conclusive  rested  on  a  document  obtained  by  the 
United States, through official “diplomatic channels.”  Id., 
at 218.  There was no indication that the declaration was 
inconsistent  with  the  Soviet  Union’s  past  statements.  
Indeed,  the  Court  emphasized  that  the  declaration  was 
consistent  with  expert  evidence  in  point.    See  ibid.    That 
the  Commissariat’s  declaration  was  deemed  “conclusive” 
in  the  circumstances  Pink  presented  scarcely  suggests 
that all submissions by a foreign government are entitled 
to the same weight. 
  The  Court  of  Appeals  also  reasoned  that  a  foreign  gov-
ernment’s  characterization  of  its  own  laws  should  be 
afforded  “the  same  respect  and  treatment  that  we  would 
expect our government to receive in comparable matters.”  
837 F. 3d, at 189.  The concern for reciprocity is sound, but 
it  does  not  warrant  the  Court  of  Appeals’  judgment.    In-
deed,  the  United  States,  historically,  has  not  argued  that 
foreign courts are bound to accept its characterizations or 
precluded from considering other relevant sources.6 
  The  understanding that  a  government’s  expressed  view 

—————— 

6 The  Chinese  sellers  assert,  see  Supp.  Brief  for  Respondents  7–8, 
that  the  United  States  sought  a  greater  degree  of  deference  in  a  2002 
submission to a World Trade Organization panel.  In fact, the submis-
sion acknowledged that “the Panel is not bound to accept the interpre-
tation [of U. S. law] presented by the United States.”  Brief for United 
States  as  Amicus  Curiae  29,  n. 6  (quoting  Second  Written  Submission 
of the United States of America, United States—Section 129(c)(1) of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, WT/DS221 ¶11 (Mar. 8, 2002)).