In the 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case Archawski et al. v. Hanioti, the court was tasked with determining whether a Greek judgment could be enforced in American courts despite it being contrary to American public policy and due process standards. The plaintiffs were Polish citizens who had been awarded damages by a Greek court against the defendant, a Greek citizen, for war crimes committed during World War II while he served as an officer in Nazi-occupied Poland. The defendant argued that enforcing this judgment would violate his rights under U.S law because he did not receive fair notice or opportunity to defend himself before the foreign tribunal. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hanioti (the defendant), stating that although comity generally requires respect for judgments rendered by competent foreign tribunals, such deference is not absolute and does not extend to situations where enforcement would violate fundamental principles of justice or public policy as understood within our legal system. This decision underscored that while international cooperation is important and often beneficial, it cannot come at the expense of domestic legal protections afforded to individuals under United States law.

In the dissenting opinion for Archawski et al. v. Hanioti, it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case on grounds of forum non conveniens was inappropriate and inconsistent with prior rulings. The dissenting justices believed that this doctrine should only be applied in exceptional circumstances where trial in a particular court would cause clear injustice or hardship, which they did not believe to be true in this instance. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Greek law, arguing that there were significant uncertainties about its application and effect on the case at hand. Furthermore, they contended that dismissing a lawsuit simply because it involves foreign elements undermines American courts' ability to adjudicate complex international disputes fairly and effectively.