United States v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506 (S.D. Fla. 1990)
United States v. Noriega is a landmark case addressing the intersection of international law and the exercise of military power.
Was the U.S. invasion of Panama and the subsequent capture and extradition of General Manuel Noriega consistent with international law and principles of sovereign immunity and the act of state doctrine?
Customary international law and the United Nations Charter prohibit the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state except in cases of self-defense or where authorized by the United Nations Security Council. In the U.S., exceptions and immunities such as the act of state doctrine may provide defenses against prosecution for acts committed in a foreign state.
The court held that the political question doctrine barred judicial inquiry into the legality of the U.S. invasion of Panama. Accordingly, Noriega's capture and trial for violations of U.S. law were permissible as the courts deferred to the executive and legislative branches.
United States v. Noriega is significant for law students because it highlights the limitations of judicial intervention in matters of foreign policy and military action, areas typically seen as the domain of the other arms of government. It provides insight into the challenging interplay between international law principles and national sovereignty, and how U.S. courts interpret their role in such global issues.