"Insidious Wiles of Foreign Law:" a British View

The Economist gives headline treatment to the brewing controversy in the United States regarding how much and how far foreign law should control American legal processes. Americans have found treaties affect far more than foreign policy, they can influence state criminal courts, as we found out in the Medellin v Dretke case, where Mexicans claimed a treaty prevented their exectutions for murder and in the recent case where the Supreme Court referred to foreign laws to forbid imposing the death penalty on juveniles Roper v Simmons. Foreign law cuts both ways however as aggressive Federal Prosecutors have sought to put on trial foreign white collar defendants for using american internet servers to conduct wire fraud and importers who brought products into the United States that violated technical rules of the exporting country. The Nebraska Surpeme Court even had a case where a Canadian lawyer sought admission to the NebraskaBar claiming that the North American Free Trade Agreement required the Nebraska State Bar Association to admit her. In re Application of Collins-Bazant, 254 Neb. 614, 578 N.W.2d 38 (Neb. 05/15/1998) . The Economist ignores however that those on the Supreme Court who are most receptive to adopting foreign standards on the death penalty likely also are those who would allow the United States Government a wide berth on prosecuting foreign defendants for white collar and computer crimes.