Case 1-3. SEI FUJII v. STATE Colombia v. Peru

1. Michael Tu CSA 6470 SUII 2003 Case 1-3. SEI FUJII v. STATEColombia v. Peru

2. Judicial Body United States, Supreme Court of California, 1952.

3. Facts Mr. Sei Fujii purchased a real estate property in California shortly after WWII. Since he was a Japanese alien and ineligible for citizenship under US Naturalization laws, trial court stated Fujii�s ownership was in violation of California�s alien land law and the land was escheated to the state.

4. Apart of the alien land law (1945) states: �Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of the provision of this act [an alien ineligible for citizenship under the laws of the United States or ineligible to own land in the US because no treaty between the US and his or her country provides for such a right]� shall escheat as of the date of such acquiring, to, and become and remain the property of the State of California.�

5. Mr. Fujii appealed and an intermediate appellate court held that the alien land law violated the United Nations Charter�s human rights provisions and reversed the decision of the trial course. Then the state of California appealed to the state Supreme Court.

6. Issue The sole question presented on this appeal to the state Supreme Court is the validity of the California alien law. Are the UN Charter provisions pledging cooperation in promoting and observing fundamental freedoms automatically, or 14th amendment requirements of the U.S. Constitution, applicable?

7. Decision The US Constitution's 14th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination. Thus,

8. Rational The UN Charter provisions on human rights set out goals and aspirations, not self-executing provisions. They were not meant to become rules of law. This is in contrast to the rules in the Charter dealing with rights and privileges of the officers and employees of the UN, which signatories are required to observe.

9. At the time of this case, there was no US-Japan treaty giving Japanese the right to own land in the US. The UN Charter requires nations to promote human rights (including non-discrimination based on national origin). Treaties (such as the UN Charter) are part of American law and must be observed. Treaties do not supersede inconsistent local laws unless they are self-executing. To determine if a treaty is self-executing, one looks at the intent of the parties. That is, for a treaty provision to be operative without the aid of implementing legislation, it must appear that its authors meant to prescribe a rule that, standing alone, would be enforceable in the courts.

10. American states are bound to observe the US Constitution. The California law, which is based on racial discrimination, violates the US Constitution. When a California law causes an alien's land to escheat to the state merely because of the owner's alien status, the law violates the UN Charter (which might not apply because the U.N. Charter is not self-executing) and the US Constitution (which is self-executing).

11. Relevancy International treaties relating to your business should be observed in detail as municipal law is regarded as subservient to international law. Therefore, mangers must acknowledge that treaties can usually over-ride national and local laws in most countries as states have a general obligation to bring their municipal law into compliance with international norms. From the Sei Fujii vs. State case, we perceived that the Charter (of the United Nations) has become the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.