The weight to be assigned to the laws and practices of foreign legal systems in the analysis of international agreements and domestic statutory disputes has long been a topic of debate in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government. On one side of the argument, traditional scholars contend that, as a sovereign, the United States should make decisions based solely on the best interests of its citizens, regardless of the detriment imposed on the international community by such practices. Conversely, as a modern approach, the cosmopolitan view of international systems' depicts the United States as just one member in an international web of judicial, legislative, and executive decisions, with each country's procedures affecting the others' laws and lifestyles. ...
The Supreme Court's decision in Abbott should be examined using two distinct lenses. Viewing this decision domestically, by determining the United States's stance on international custody rights, the Supreme Court resolved a federal circuit split and dictated the standard for domestic courts to follow in cases involving the Hague Convention. More importantly, on an international level, this decision signals to the international community that the United States judicial system is willing to utilize foreign laws and policies to interpret treaties to which the United States is a party. This is a lengthy stride in giving the field of international law more validity in the realm of multi-national and domestic litigation.
Brewer, Danielle L.
"The Last Rights: Controversial Ne Exeat Clause Grants Custodial Power Under Abbott v. Abbott,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 62:
2, Article 14.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol62/iss2/14