The U.S. Supreme Court case, The Irrawaddy (1897), involved a dispute over the interpretation of maritime law and its application to collisions at sea. A British ship named The Irrawaddy collided with an American vessel in Japanese waters, causing significant damage to the latter. Under international maritime law, liability for such accidents is typically shared between both vessels unless one can prove that it was entirely not at fault. However, due to a unique provision in American law known as "the divided damages rule," liability was split 50-50 regardless of fault if both ships were moving when they collided. In this case, the owners of the damaged American vessel sued for full compensation from The Irrawaddy's owners under Japanese jurisdiction which did not recognize America’s divided damages rule but instead followed similar principles as Britain where blame had to be proven. The Supreme Court ruled against them stating that since neither party could conclusively prove their innocence or guilt beyond reasonable doubt; therefore, according to US laws applicable on high seas and despite being foreign vessels or waters involved - each party should bear half of total losses incurred during collision.

In the dissenting opinion for The Irrawaddy case, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to not hold a foreign sovereign liable for damages caused by its military forces was incorrect. He believed that international law did not provide immunity in such cases and pointed out that there were numerous instances where nations had been held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, he contended that if a nation could be sued in its own courts, it should also be subject to suit in foreign courts under similar circumstances. This would ensure fairness and justice regardless of geographical boundaries. In his view, allowing countries to escape liability simply because they are sovereign entities undermines the principles of accountability and responsibility upon which legal systems are built.