Brief Fact Summary. Despite the fact that the U.S. and Austria were at war, Techt (D) claimed that she was entitled to take property in New York on the basis of the 1848 Treaty between the United States and Austria.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court must decide whether the provision involved in a controversy is inconsistent with national policy or safety in a situation whereby a treaty between belligerents at war has not been denounced.
President and senate may denounce the treaty, and thus terminate its life.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Must the court decide whether the provision involved in a controversy is inconsistent with national policy or safety in a situation whereby a treaty between belligerents at war has not been denounced?
Held. (Cardozo, J.) Yes. The court must decide whether the provision involved in a controversy is inconsistent with national policy or safety in a situation whereby a treaty between belligerents at war has not been denounced. If a treaty is in force, it implies that it is the supreme law of the land. There is nothing incompatible with the policy of the government, safety of the nation, or the maintenance of the war in the enforcement of this treaty, so as to sustain Techt’s (D) title. Affirmed.
Discussion. The effect of war on the existing treaties of belligerents is an unsettled area of the law and this was noted by the court. Some have opined that treaties end ipso facto at time of war. But in this case, the court found that treaties end only to the extent that their execution is incompatible with the war.