In the United States v. Aloyzas Balsys case of 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that a person could not invoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions about crimes committed in other countries. The case involved Aloyzas Balsys, a Lithuanian immigrant who was suspected of committing war crimes during World War II while serving as an officer in Nazi-controlled Lithuania. When questioned by U.S authorities about his activities during this period, he refused to answer on grounds that his responses might incriminate him and lead to prosecution in other nations (specifically Israel, Germany or Lithuania). However, the court held that since the Fifth Amendment only protects individuals from being compelled to provide testimony which may be used against them in criminal proceedings within U.S jurisdiction; it does not apply when potential prosecution is overseas.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Balsys, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both U.S. and international law principles regarding self-incrimination rights. She contended that a person should not be compelled to provide testimony in one country that could potentially incriminate them in another, as this would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Furthermore, she pointed out that such an approach contradicts international human rights norms which aim to protect individuals from being forced into making statements implicating themselves in criminal activity regardless of jurisdictional boundaries.