This thread brought up an interesting issue. Do courts sometimes consider foreign law, and should they do so? Supreme court justices have been arguing with each other about that question. I'm not sure what I think about the latter question.
Rightly or wrongly, US courts have long considered laws from European countries in deciding US cases, including Supreme Court cases deciding on fundamental issues involving the foundation of the republic, our Constitution. Justices Scalia and Breyer debated the appropriateness of this a few years ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1352357/posts
Justice OConner explains that the US high court considers not only foreign law, but foreign public opinion:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21551
In another related national debate, the new PROTECT IP Act says while US courts have no jurisdiction over a .fr domain, in very specific circumstamces they can remove a .com registration, even if the registrant isn't in the US. (Technically .com is a US chartered TLD, originally operated by the US department of defense.) When a site contains basically nothing but violations of international copyright law, which this site may, a US court can take the site down if it's within the .com domain. Since apparently NONE of the material is licensed, a US court could, under the new law, kill the domain registration.
Some say PROTECT IP should be more limited than it is. Others say it's already specific enough to limit the new power given to complainants and the attorney general, through the courts. Personally I'll wait and see how the law is actually applied to make up my mind.