Table Of ContentDoes the Constitution Follow the Flag?
This page intentionally left blank
DOES THE CONSTITUTION
FOLLOW THE FLAG?
The Evolution of Territoriality
in American Law
Kal Raustiala
1
2009
3
OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,publishesworksthatfurther
OxfordUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellence
inresearch,scholarship,andeducation.
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright#2009byOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016
www.oup.com
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,
withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Raustiala,Kal.
Doestheconstitutionfollowtheflag?/KalRaustiala
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-0-19-530459-6
1. Conflictoflaws—Jurisdiction—UnitesStates. 2. UnitesStates—Foreign
relations—Lawandlegislation. 3. Effectivenessandvalidityoflaw—UnitesStates.
4. Exterritoriality. 5. Aliens—Legalstatus,laws,etc.—UnitedStates.
6. Americans—Legalstatus,laws,etc.—UnitedStates.
I. Title.
KF413.J87R38 2009
342.73’0413—dc22 2009003557
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
onacid-freepaper
PREFACE
This book is about the way that geography shapes legal rules and under-
standings—and how fundamental changes in American power and in
world politics have challenged and sometimes altered the traditionally
territorial system of American law. Do U.S. laws stop at the water’s edge?
Ifnot,dotheyoperatedifferentlybeyondAmericanterritory?Atonelevel,
thesequestionsarenarrowandlawyerly,andthereisindeedalargelegal
literature on these topics. At another level, however, the nature of the
connection between law and land raises profoundly significant political,
economic,andsocialquestions.
ManyofushavewatchedfootageofCubanrefugeesswimmingashorein
Florida,desperatelytryingtoreachlandbeforeAmericanofficialscangrasp
them.Underwhatisknownasthe‘‘wetfoot–dryfoot’’policy,touchingthe
territory of the United States—the dry soil itself—is critical to the legal
determinationoftheirstatus:thedifferencebetweenanewlifeintheUnited
StatesandaforcedreturntoCuba.Thisisadramaticexampleofthepower
ofterritory,butnotanunusualone.ThelawsofJapandifferfromthoseof
the United States, and hence even in a supposedly ‘‘flat’’ and globalizing
worldAmericansinJapanexpecttobesubjecttoJapaneselaw.Thespatial
dimensionoflawexistsevenwithintheUnitedStates:Nevadapermitsacts
banned in Utah, and thus crossing the state line alters what is and is not
legal.Inadeepsenselegalpowerisdefinedterritorially,andhasbeensince
the sovereign state came into being in seventeenth-century Europe. The
basicjurisdictionalprincipleisasimpleone:whereyouaredetermineswhat
rulesyouaregovernedby.
Yet, perhaps precisely because this principle of territoriality is so com-
monplace,itisrarelyexaminedandsurprisinglyilldefended.Unlikesover-
eignty—thesubjectofyardsofshelfspaceinanygoodlibrary—territoriality
has not been the topic of much debate outside of geography departments.
Writing in the mid-1990s, the influential political scientist John Ruggie
declared that ‘‘it is truly astonishing that the concept of territoriality has
been so little studied by students of international politics.’’1 Fifteen years
lateritremainslittlestudied.
Thisisonereasoneventsthatforceattentiontotheterritorialnatureof
legalrulescausesomuchdisagreementandconfusion.Considerthecurrent
debate over the rights of suspected terrorists held in the American naval
base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In recent years the federal courts have
grappled with the question of whether these detainees have any constitu-
tionalrightsatall,orwhetherinsteadtheyare,ascriticscharge,trappedin
anoffshore‘‘legalblackhole.’’
The answer turns very much on how we understand the fundamental
geographyofAmericanlaw.AsIwilldemonstrate,suchquestionsarenot
new and they surface more frequently than one might imagine. Whether
U.S.lawappliedinoccupiedMexicancities,federalterritoriesintheWest,
‘‘Indian country,’’ or offshore consular courts; whether it restricts law
enforcementabroad,regulatesforeignstockmanipulators,orgovernsmili-
tarydependentsinoverseasbases—theseandotherissueshaverepeatedly
arisen throughout American history. The complex, interdependent world
we live in today has simply multiplied and deepened the challenges to
territoriality;ithasnotcreatedthem.
Thisbookhasseveralaims.Thefirstistoexplainwhyterritorialityisa
significant concept and why the American legal system, like other legal
systems, has traditionally been presumptively territorial. I say ‘‘presump-
tively’’becauseterritorialityisnotanironcladprinciple,norisitunchan-
ging.Butitisessentialtotheunderstandingofsovereigntythathasbeenin
place more or less since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Territoriality
grounds political power in control over space. Because jurisdiction is a
foundational concept in law, legal rules are an excellent window on the
evolutionofterritoriality.IfocusinthisbookonAmericanlegalrulesnot
because the paradigm of territoriality is unique to the United States—
territoriality is a fundamental principle of the international system—but
because the United States is enormously significant and because, as an
Americanprofessoroflaw,itisthelegalsystemIknowbest.
Mysecond aimistotrace, inverybroadbrushstrokes,theevolutionof
territorialityinAmericanlawfromthefoundingeratotoday.Territoriality
has always been an important principle, but as a practice, as well as a
principle,ithasacomplicatedpast(andanevenmorecomplicatedpresent).
It arises in myriad ways, such as whether the Environmental Protection
AgencycanregulatepollutersinCanada,whetherU.S.antitrustlawapplies
to foreign firms affecting U.S. markets, or whether FBI agents must read
Miranda warnings to suspects abroad. These varied issues are not new or
vi PREFACE
unknown, but to date they have been addressed separately. This book
shows that all share a common core in our assumptions about, and
responsesto,theterritorialnatureofsovereignty.
My final aim is to advance several claims about the evolution of terri-
toriality. First, extraterritoriality has shown surprising continuity in its
purposeevenasitsformhaschanged.Extraterritorialitymeantverydiffer-
ent things to nineteenth-century lawyers than it does to contemporary
lawyers. But despite dramatic changes in form, the primary function of
extraterritorialityhasremainedmuchthesame.Thatfunction,Iargue,isto
manage and minimize the legal differences entrenched by Westphalian
sovereignty.
Second, extraterritoriality is paralleled by what I call intraterritoriality.
Just as extraterritoriality has long been a way to conceptually redraw
maps,toredefinewhatisinsideandoutsidethescopeofasovereign’slaw,
intraterritoriality has served to delineate differences within national
borders, particularly as the United States grew in size and power. Intra-
territorial doctrines, such as the claim that some constitutional rights do
not apply in some American territory, reflect the tension between the
demands of liberal constitutionalism and the imperatives of global power
politics. This tension was dramatically evidenced when, as a rising great
power, the United States acquired an overseas empire a century ago. But
it continues to play out today, as the debate over Guantanamo amply
illustrates.
ThroughoutthisbookIpaycloseattentiontotheinternationalcontext,
andparticularlytothechangingglobalroleoftheUnitedStates.Asaweak
power, the United States showed solicitude for traditional Westphalian
principles of territoriality. As a superpower, it was far more willing to
bendandevenbreakestablisheddoctrine.Thistransformation,andrelated
shiftsininternationalpoliticsandeconomics,helpedtoshapethekindsof
territorial claims that were made, even if the fundamental aim of these
claims—tomanageandsometimesmanipulatelegaldifferences—remained
broadlyconstant.
In short, this book offers a framework that connects a disparate set of
territorialrulesandpracticesandexplorestheirpurposeandfunction.My
overarching goal is to make sense of a world in which the United States
appliesitslawtosomeactorsinsomeplaceswhiledenyingittootheractors
in other places. I do not claim to offer a comprehensive theory of the
evolutionofterritoriality;thetopicistoocomplextobeexplainedsatisfac-
torily by a few master variables. Instead, I have written an account that
Ihopebringsclaritytothetopic,thatlinksitspoliticalandlegalaswellas
domestic and international aspects, and that helps to ground current de-
batesinanhistoricalcontext.
PREFACE vii
This page intentionally left blank
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The genesis of this book rests with a student’s question, many years ago,
abouthowthedoctrinesofjurisdictionwithininternationallawfitwiththe
constitutional treatment of Puerto Rico. From there I began to read more
abouttheAmericanimperialadventureoftheearlytwentiethcenturyand,
increasingly, tosee theparallels between theseolder historicepisodesand
the then-emerging effort to detain foreign nationals outside American
territory in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Soon, and with the urging of
others,Ibegantothinkaboutabookonthesetopics.
OverthemanyyearsthatIexploredtheseissuesIhaveincurrednumer-
ous debts, but have also had the great pleasure of working with many
excellent scholars and students. At Princeton, where I spent the 2002–3
academic year in the Law and Public Affairs Program at the Woodrow
Wilson School, I began the early stages of this project. I thank Princeton
foritssupportandinparticularthankourleaderatLAPA,ChrisEisgruber,
whoinculcatedawonderfulspiritofinquiryandgaveussubstantialfreedom
tothinkandwrite.VisitsatHarvardLawSchool,ColumbiaLawSchool,and
theUniversityofChicagoLawSchoolgavemenewcolleaguestoengageand
manynewideas.AndwiththesupportofmyDeanatUCLA,MichaelSchill,
I convened a smallinterdisciplinary workshoponterritorialityatUCLAin
2006,whichprovidedmeawealthofnewissuestoconsider.Overthelast
fewyearsIhavepresentedaspectsofthisprojectatmanyinstitutionsaround
NorthAmerica,includingPrinceton,Columbia,Harvard,Hofstra,Berkeley,
Chicago,Duke,SMU,theUniversityofBritishColumbia,Georgetown,Penn,
theRANDCorporation,andUCLA.Ithankthemanyparticipantsatallthese
talksfortheirhelpfulandconstructivefeedback.
Anearlyandbriefversionofmyargumentappearedaspartofavolume
editedbyMilesKahlerandBarbaraWalter,titledTerritorialityandConflictin
