Opinion ID: 203945
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Territorial Principle

Text: Relying on the consent of the flag nation, the territorial argument could justify our government's exercise of power under international law. But this does not mean that all due process concerns are automatically satisfied. In other words, we erred in Cardales, and subsequent precedent, by assuming due process was satisfied if international law was satisfied. [1] Rather, compliance with international law is necessary but not sufficient. Under the doctrine of personal jurisdiction, principles of due process and comity between the states preclude one state from exercising jurisdiction over non-forum-state individuals where that person lacks sufficient contacts with the forum state. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) (finding no personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in a suit based on a foreign helicopter crash where there were no certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit [did] not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945))). The same result should be applied when our government attempts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over foreign nationalsdue process limits one State's power to seize the citizen of another State, absent a nexus between the seizing State and the seized individual. See Perlaza, 439 F.3d at 1168 (The nexus requirement is a judicial gloss applied to ensure that a defendant is not improperly haled before a court for trial.... [It] serves the same purpose as the minimum contacts test in personal jurisdiction. (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Caicedo, 47 F.3d 370, 372 (9th Cir.1995) (A defendant would have a legitimate expectation that because he has subjected himself to the laws of one nation, other nations will not be entitled to exercise jurisdiction without some nexus.); see also Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 403 (explaining that extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable, and basing a reasonableness inquiry on eight factors, many of which relate to the nexus between the activity and the jurisdiction). Considered in this way, I fail to see how the fact that the flag nation has consented to a search and potential arrest aboard its vessel in international water has any bearing on the sufficiency of contacts between a defendant and the United States. Thus, consent of the flag nation, while relevant to establishing statutory jurisdiction, should not automatically establish that due process is satisfied. See Perlaza, 439 F.3d at 1169.