THE PAQUETE HABANA

and ordered the proceeds of the auction as well as any profits made from her
cargo to be restored to the claimant, "with damages and costs".

Paquete Habana.; The Lola, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), was a landmark United
States Supreme Court case that reversed an earlier court decision allowing the
capture of fishing vessels under Prize. Its importance rests on the fact that it
integrated Customary international law with American law, perhaps the
quintessential position of those who hold a monist perspective of international
law.

1 Background of the case

2 The court's decision and merits

o

2.1 Fuller's dissent

3 See also

4 References

Background of the case

In April 1898 two fishing vessels, the Paquete Habana and the Lola,
separately left Cuban ports in Havana in order to fish. The two vessels were
eventually captured by US Naval vessels as part of Admiral William T.
Sampson's blockade of Cuba, who was ordered to execute the blockade 'in
pursuance of the laws of the United States, and the law of nations applicable
to such cases.' The vessels were placed within Cuba's territorial waters at the
onset of the Spanish-American War and then taken to Key West, where both
vessels were eventually auctioned by the district court. Both vessels were
valued under the price of 2000$(US) and were thus not originally thought to
be exempt from seizure.
Admiral Sampson justified the seizures by stating that most fishing vessels,
flying under the Spanish banner were manned by excellent seamen, "liable for
further service" as naval reserves, an asset that could eventually be used
against US interests in the Spanish-American War.
The owners of the vessels however made an appeal to the circuit courts, citing
a long held tradition by nations of exempting fishing vessels from prize
capture in times of war. This "tradition", a primary example of customary
international law, dates back from an order by Henry IV in 1403, and has
more or less been observed by a large majority of States ever since.
At the time of capture both vessels had no evidence of aiding the enemy, and
were unaware of the US naval blockade. No arms were found on board, and
no attempts were made to either run the blockade or resist capture.
The court's decision and merits
The United States Supreme Court cited lengthy legal precedents established to
support the existence of a customary international law that exempted fishing
vessels from prize capture, dating all the way back to ancient times and
occurring repeatedly between Great Britain and France. In 1403, King Henry
IV of England issued his officers leave fisherman alone during times of war.
He then signed a treaty with France reaffirming this act between both parties.
Again in 1521 between Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France a treaty
was assigned. This treaty was invoked due to a desperate rise in the markets
for herring. With the war between the two countries raging on, fisherman
dared not venture out to sea. Therefore, a treaty was necessary on both
accounts to prevent starvation among those who relied upon cheap herring,
namely the lower classes. Situations similar to this continued to crop up
throughout history prior to the Paquete case. Using this as a basis for
customary law, the court then eventually found the capture of both vessels as
"unlawful and without probable cause", reversed the District Court's decision,

APPLYING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL

LAW.
Case: The Paquete Habana (1900, US)
Facts: Two fishing vessels, running in and out of Havana, owned by a
Spanish subject a Cuban birth, were captured by US Naval vessels and
claimed as prizes of war, as part of a blockade of Cuba in the Spanish
American War. Vessels had no weapons onboard, and didnt know of the
blockade until they were captured. There was no evidence vessels were
aiding the enemies, and they made no attempt to run or resist capture. The
vessels were then auctioned off by the district court.
The owner brought the claim on behalf of himself and the crew (who had 2/3
shares interest of the catch), citing a tradition of exempting fishing vessels
from being captured as prizes of war. This international custom dates back to a
decree issued by Henry VI, and has been more or less observed by a majority
of states since.
Issue: Whether the customary doctrine of exempting fishing vessels from
being captured as prizes of war should be enforced.
Holding: District court order reversed, and the proceeds of the sale of the
vessels and its cargo, be restored to claimant, along with damages and costs.
Reasoning: Court said that international law is part of our law, and when
there is no treaty or other governing force, we must look at the customs and
usages of civilized nations. The court looked at many legal precedents and
treaties establishing this customary international law, and found that the
capture of the vessels was unlawful and without probable cause. Court found
no evidence that the vessels or its crew would aid the enemy; it was just a
fishing vessel. Court also noted that it was the "general policy of the
government to conduct the war in accordance with the principles of
international law."
Notes
First question: Whether or not there is customary international law? When
does custom ripen to law?
Factors the court uses (here and in the asylum case) - have to be found the
objective requirement - Practice of states
States must be acting a certain way to be custom
The subjective requirement - opinion juris (reason/psychology)
Why are states acting that way?
They have to be acting a particular way because they feel compelled by law
- They must show that the practice is coming about because the state feels
compelled by law
Like cordiality - you have to prove there's law behind it, usually not
Evidence to find these factors -What did court use in Havana case in
order to find these factors?
Objectively
Scholarship
Treaties of other nations (bilateral treaties)
Court also noted the lack of competing principles
Proclamations (p. 99) - the members of the country are proclaiming the
practice
Subjectively
by acting in a certain way (abiding by treaty), they are acting this way
because they are compelled by law
By looking at the sources of the evidence, court finds sufficient to enforce
the
Custom
Critique:
there is no rule of law. Unclear.