Denouncing the 'One Voice' Doctrine

Abstract

The 'one voice' doctrine holds that the executive's recognition of foreign states and governments is conclusive evidence of their status as such in English proceedings. However, the doctrine - properly understood as an irrebuttable presumption of status - is beset with theoretical and practical problems. Here, I argue that courts should abandon it, for three reasons: first, the doctrine is motivated by overbroad accounts of the executive's foreign affairs prerogative; second, it suffers from inconsistencies on matters of scope, which its underlying justifications cannot resolve; and third, the doctrine creates conceptual incoherence, undermining the purpose of other doctrines which operate contingently upon it. In its place, courts should adopt an alternative rule, triggering a rebuttable presumption of status and attributing evidential weight to executive certificates, which avoids these problems while still serving the 'one voice' doctrine's only legitimate purpose: helping courts reliably answer questions of status.