Page:Zivotofsky v. Kerry.pdf/71

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 576 U. S. 1 (2015)
71

Scalia, J., dissenting

ognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as a separate and self governing nation” and to “acknowledge the authority and control over the same of the government instituted by the people thereof.” § 10, id., at 463. Constitutional? And if Congress may control recognition when exercising its power “to dispose of . . . the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,” Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, why not when exercising other enumerated powers? Neither text nor history nor precedent yields a clear answer to these questions. Fortunately, I have no need to confront these matters today—nor does the Court—because § 214(d) plainly does not concern recognition.

Recognition is more than an announcement of a policy. Like the ratifcation of an international agreement or the termination of a treaty, it is a formal legal act with effects under international law. It signifes acceptance of an international status, and it makes a commitment to continued acceptance of that status and respect for any attendant rights. See, e. g., Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Art. 6, Dec. 26, 1933, 49 Stat. 3100, T. S. No. 881. “Its legal effect is to create an estoppel. By granting recognition, [states] debar themselves from challenging in future whatever they have previously acknowledged.” 1 G. Schwarzenberger, International Law 127 (3d ed. 1957). In order to extend recognition, a state must perform an act that unequivocally manifests that intention. Whiteman § 3. That act can consist of an express conferral of recognition, or one of a handful of acts that by international custom imply recognition—chiefly, entering into a bilateral treaty, and sending or receiving an ambassador. Ibid.

To know all this is to realize at once that § 214(d) has nothing to do with recognition. Section 214(d) does not require the Secretary to make a formal declaration about Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. And nobody suggests that international custom infers acceptance of sovereignty from the birthplace designation on a passport or birth report, as it