More recently, the Court of Justice, which has stressed that the procedure is “fundamentally fair” within its original jurisdiction, considers that its law enforcement authority is to order the cancellation of part of a state`s profits from its violation of an intergovernmental pact and to reform certain agreements concluded by states.1073 The Tribunal stressed that its enforcement power derives both from its “inherent power” to the division between states and from the approval of Congress. As far as its inherent power is concerned, the Court found that states were negotiating water rights “in the shadow of the extended power” of the Court of Justice to distribute them equitably and that it was “difficult to imagine” that a state would approve a water rights agreement if the Court was not empowered to implement the agreement.1074 The Court justified it in the same way: as its remediation power gains “even more force,” because a pact between states “gains even more strength” because a pact between states would have an agreement on water rights if the Court does not have the power to enforce the agreement.1074 The Court has justified in the same way that its remediation power “acquires even greater force” , because a pact between states is “even stronger” because a pact between states is made between states. because a pact between states is “even stronger,” because a pact between states, “receiving the blessing of Congress, is federal law.” 1075 However, the Court of Justice held that the “legal status” of an intergovernmental pact as a federal law could also limit the enforcement power of the Court of Justice, as the Court cannot order a discharge inconsistent with the explicit terms of a pact.1076 In Cohens/. Virginia,43Footnote19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 398-99 (1821). There is a diktat that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not include recourse between a state and its own citizens. Long after that, the Supreme Court dismissed a complaint of incompetence because the registration did not prove that the company against which the complaint was being brought was chartered in another state.44FootnotePennsylvania v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 553 (1871).
Subsequently, the Court decided that it did not intro an appeal by a state to which its citizens are either a party or because of the effect of a judgment against them.45FootnoteCalifornia v. Southern Pacific Co., 157 U.S. 229 (1895); Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U.S. 199 (1902). In his diktat in Cohens, Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall also pointed out that there may not be jurisdiction over state complaints to enforce their criminal laws.46Note 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) to 398-99. 67 years later, the court wrote this diktat in Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co.47Footnote127 U.S. 265 (1888).
Wisconsin sued a Louisiana company to recover a ruling in its favor by one of its own courts. Referring to the rule of international law that the courts of one country enforce the criminal laws of another country, in part to the 13th section of the Judicial Act of 1789, which gives the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over civil litigation in which a state is a party, and partly to The dissent of Justice Iredell in Chisholm v.