parent nodes: Campbell v Clinton | judicial review of foreign relations
Japan Whaling Assn v American Cetacean Society
Facts
US and Japan, among others, enter into ICRW treaty on whales
IWC established to set whaling quotas, but lacks enforcement powers
Congress enacts Pelly and Packwood Amendments, which required the executive to certify when another country was violating ICRW quotas, and to accordingly impose sanctions
Japan violates IWC quotas
US agrees not to certify Japan under Amendments in return for promise to reduce whaling
Environmental groups challenge the agreement
Issue: Do the executive's interpretations of treaties present a nonjusticiable political question?
The Court, per White, J argues that courts "have the authority to construe treaties and executive agreements," and that "interpreting congressional legislation is an recurring and accepted task for the federal courts." This case only requires the court to decide a "purely legal" question of statutory and treaty interpretation, and the Court cannot "shirk" its duty to interpret the law, even if it involves foreign relations or other political areas.
(The Court then goes on to hold that, under ICRW and the two amendments, and applying the doctrine of Chevron v NRDC, the Secretary can lawfully refuse to certify a government in violation of the ICRW.)
judicial review of foreign relations
political question