In the 1923 Supreme Court case, The Gul Djemal, a dispute arose over whether or not an American court had jurisdiction to settle a claim for damages caused by the Turkish steamship "Gul Djemal." This ship collided with and damaged another vessel in New York Harbor. At that time, Turkey was at war with Greece but neutral towards America. The owners of the damaged ship filed suit against the Turkish government-owned steamship in U.S courts. However, Turkey claimed immunity under international law as it was operating as a transport for military supplies during wartime. The Supreme Court ruled that while foreign sovereigns generally have immunity from being sued in U.S courts under principles of international law; this does not apply when they are engaged in commercial activities within U.S territory. Therefore, since "Gul Djemal" was involved in commerce at the time of collision rather than any sovereign function exclusive to its government status (like diplomatic missions), it could be held liable for damages caused by negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for The Gul Djemal case, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a foreign ship owner to limit its liability in accordance with American law, despite having no connection or allegiance to America, was unjust. It was contended that this ruling would encourage forum shopping and could potentially undermine international maritime law. Furthermore, it was suggested that such a decision might lead other nations to reciprocate by applying their own laws in favor of their citizens at the expense of Americans abroad. This perspective emphasized respect for international comity and fairness over strict adherence to domestic statutes when dealing with matters involving foreign entities on U.S soil.