The issue: One of the fiercest debates among legal scholars today is the degree to which it is proper for U.S. judges to cite foreign case law in making decisions. Conservatives, notably Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, tend to take the view that international agreements and laws should not apply, as they derive from different constitutional systems, while liberals, notably Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tend to argue that a more "internationalist" legal philosophy is needed.

Sotomayor's record: The 2000 case Croll v. Croll involved the application of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Mrs. Croll had removed her child from Hong Kong to the United States in violation of a Hong Kong court's joint custody order and Mr. Croll filed a petition under the Hague Convention seeking the child's return. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where Sotomayor currently sits, sided with the mother, ruling that the convention did not give Mr. Croll the right to determine the child's place of residence.

Sotomayor dissented, not only arguing for a more expansive interpretation of the treaty, but also referring to foreign case law to make her argument. "Sotomayor went through the foreign cases quite extensively and found that the view she was taking was consistent with what had been found by foreign courts. She paid a lot more attention to them than the majority had," said attorney and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe.

This suggests that Sotomayor sides with those who believe that foreign case law should at least be considered when applicable. Howe, whose firm is currently arguing a largely identical case before the Supreme Court, is thrilled. "We think she's brilliant," she said.

Serge Ligtenberg/Getty Images

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTITUTIONS

The issue: Liberals and conservatives also argue over the degree to which U.S. courts are bound by international treaties and/or rulings by international courts. The argument came to a head in the 2008 Supreme Court case Medellin v. Texas, in which a Mexican citizen appealed his U.S. death row conviction on the grounds that he was not informed by police of his right to contact the Mexican embassy under a preexisting treaty on consular relations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) sided with Medellin, but the U.S. Supreme Court found that international treaties cannot be considered domestic law unless enacted by Congress and that the ICJ's ruling was irrelevant.

Sotomayor's record: The justice's dissent in the Croll case does seem to indicate that she sides with the court's liberal wing in applying international law and treaty obligations to relevant cases. Additionally, her 2000 dissent in the case of Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda argues that citizens of Bermuda should be considered "subjects of a foreign state" based on a "contemporary understanding of the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories."

In a 2007 forward to, The International Judge, a book on the role of judges in international law, Sotomayor took what seems to be a positive view toward the construction of international courts and legal institutions. "This book provides a nuanced roadmap for [judges in international courts], as well as for judges from established legal systems, while we all attempt to cobble together a culture of justice-seeking in a changed world," she wrote.

"It does seem that she thinks more globally," Howe said. "She represented a number of companies trying to do business overseas when she was a private litigator so she does seem to have a broader international outlook."

LIONEL HEALING/AFP/Getty Image

THE "GLOBAL GAG RULE"

The issue: The Mexico City Policy, also known as the global gag rule, has been a political football in the U.S. abortion debate for 25 years, with the international development and women's health communities caught in the middle. The rule to prohibit federal funding of organizations that provide or promote abortion was first instituted under Ronald Reagan, then suspended under Bill Clinton, revived under George W. Bush, and recently killed again by Barack Obama.

Critics charge that the rule prohibits free speech and shuts off funding to organizations that also promote other types of birth control. Reproductive rights groups have challenged the rule on First Amendment and due process grounds. 

Sotomayor's record: Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion in the 2002 case, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, in which the CRLP challenged the policy on the grounds that it prevented the center from necessary collaboration with local NGOs. Sotomayor dismissed the plaintiff's appeal "not on the merits ... but for lack of constitutional standing," stating that "the Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."

The opinion gives little indication of Sotomayor's view on the policy itself, but since it is one of the only cases Sotomayor has heard that deals with abortion, it is likely to come up during her confirmation hearings.