dissenting:
Plaintiffs in this case seek to enjoin, or have declared unlawful, the construction and operation of a military training center on their land in Honduras. Because plaintiffs’ requested relief requires direct judicial interference with a foreign policy decision by the executive branch, I believe the controversy is nonjusticiable. Accordingly, I would affirm the district judge’s dismissal of the action.
I. Facts
Plaintiff Ramirez is the owner and operator, through six named corporate plaintiffs, of a large agricultural industrial complex in northern Honduras.1 The complex consists of a 14,000-acre cattle ranch, a meat and shrimp packing operation, and a fishing fleet. In early 1983, in order to further United States policy in Central America, the Departments of Defense and State decided to construct a Regional Military Training Center (RMTC or Center) in Honduras for training Salvadoran soldiers. Ramirez Declaration, H 15, Appendix (A.) at 19, 26.2 In May 1983, Ramirez learned that *1546the training center was to be located on his land. Ramirez Declaration, 117, A. at 23. In late May, Ramirez met with various United States and Honduran officials to discuss the proposed Center and the question of the ownership of the land. Ramirez Declaration 111112-13, A. at 24-26. After one meeting at the Honduran Military Headquarters, Col. Bueso Rosa, the Honduran Army Chief-of-Staff, informed Ramirez that the plaintiffs’ land was urgently needed for the military base. Id.
In early June, after inspecting the proposed site, Ramirez agreed to allow construction of the Center provided it was restricted to a designated 1500-2000 acre area. Complaint 1111, A. at 8. Subsequently, however, Ramirez was informed that additional land outside the 1500-2000 acre designated area would be needed to complete the Center. Ramirez Declaration 1123, A. at 30; Complaint 1114, A. at 10. Ramirez alleges that the Center has already expanded beyond the designated area and that its operation has jeopardized his business enterprise. Neither Honduras nor the United States has lawfully acquired the property, and plaintiffs have received no compensation for the land.3 After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute with various United States officials, plaintiffs filed this action against the Secretaries of Defense and State, and the Chief of Engineers for the Army Corps of Engineers.
Plaintiffs allege that the seizure of their land was unconstitutional. Specifically, the complaint asserts that there exists no statutory or constitutional authorization to seize the land and that construction of the RMTC deprived plaintiffs of the use of their land without due process. Plaintiffs further charge that the seizure violated the Law of Nations.
Plaintiffs seek no monetary relief for defendants’ alleged unconstitutional actions.4 Rather, plaintiffs request a declaration that those actions were unconstitutional. More important, plaintiffs seek a court order enjoining the Secretaries of Defense and State, as well as the Chief of Engineers for the Army Corps of Engineers, from constructing and operating the Center on plaintiffs’ land.
United States District Court Judge Charles R. Richey dismissed the complaint on the ground that the allegations presented a nonjusticiable political question, de Arellano v. Weinberger, 568 F.Supp. 1236 (D.D.C.1983). The court’s conclusion was based essentially on three factors: 1) judicial interference could impede our foreign policy because the issues involved are inextricably connected to our government’s relations with Honduras; 2) there are no judicially discoverable facts or standards that would enable a court to resolve the issues; and 3) the conduct of foreign affairs is constitutionally committed to the political branches of the government. 568 F.Supp. at 1238-40. Plaintiffs brought this appeal.
Because any judicial action in this case would potentially hinder the executive’s exercise of a foreign policy judgment, I agree that the controversy is nonjusticiable. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision.
II. Discussion
The critical importance of preserving the proper allocation of power among the three *1547branches of government guides my analysis in this case. The conduct of foreign affairs and the proper disposition of military power are, without question, subjects committed to the exclusive authority of the political branches of government. U.S. Const, art. I, § 8; id. art. 2, § 2. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302, 38 S.Ct. 309, 311, 62 L.Ed. 726 (1918) (“[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our Government is committed by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislative — ‘the political’ — Departments ____”). See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 788-89, 70 S.Ct. 936, 948-949, 94 L.Ed. 1255 (1950); Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113-14, 68 S.Ct. 431, 437-438, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948); Luftig v. McNamara, 373 F.2d 664, 665-66 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 945, 87 S.Ct. 2078, 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1967); Atlee v. Laird, 347 F.Supp. 689, 704-05 (E.D.Pa.1972) (three-judge court), affd sub nom. mem. Atlee v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 1545, 36 L.Ed.2d 304 (1973). In my view, granting plaintiffs’ requested relief will necessarily result in an intolerable judicial intrusion into the conduct of foreign affairs. I therefore conclude that adjudicating this case would be inconsistent with our system of separation of powers. Accordingly, I believe that the controversy presented here is nonjusticiable.
A
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that cases involving foreign affairs are often nonjusticiable. Such eases frequently turn on standards that defy judicial application, involve the exercise of a discretion demonstrably committed to the executive or legislature, or demand a single-voiced statement of the Government’s views. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211, 82 S.Ct. 691, 706, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). The nonjusticiability of cases involving foreign affairs, however, is “primarily a function of the separation of powers.” Baker, 369 U.S. at 210, 82 S.Ct. at 706. This fundamental principle, which constitutes the very basis of our system of government, requires courts to refrain from infringing on the powers reserved to the legislative and executive branches of government. Indeed, judicial power exists “only when adjudication is ‘consistent with a system of separated powers____’” Allen v. Wright, — U.S. —,—, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 97, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1951, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968)).
Impermissible judicial encroachment upon the power of the political branches can occur not only from the act of resolving a question whose nature is political, but also from the consequences that flow from judicial action. Indeed, in Atlee v. Laird, 347 F.Supp. 689 (E.D.Pa.1972), affd sub nom. mem. Atlee v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 1545, 36 L.Ed.2d 304 (1973), a three-judge district court concluded that the consequence of resolving a controversy involving foreign affairs is of paramount concern in determining justiciability. 347 F.Supp. at 702. A court’s initial task, therefore, when faced with a case involving foreign affairs, is to scrutinize the claims not only in terms of their historical management by the political branches and their susceptibility to judicial handling, but also in terms “of the possible consequences of judicial action. ” Baker, 369 U.S. at 211-12, 82 S.Ct. at 706-707 (emphasis added).5
*1548An important element in assessing the consequences of judicial action is, of course, the effect of granting the relief sought. In Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 5-10, 93 S.Ct. 2440, 2443-2445, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973), for example, the Supreme Court held the controversy at bar nonjusticiable at least in part because the injunctive relief requested intruded into the power committed to the political branches. Similarly, in this case, the intrusive nature of the relief requested leads me to conclude this controversy is nonjusticiable.
B
I recognize that the complaint here is not styled as a facial challenge to the executive’s foreign policy decision to locate a military training center in Honduras. The stated claim alleges only that the United States defendants may not lawfully run a military operation on plaintiffs’ land when that land has not been expropriated. As the majority characterizes it, therefore, the case is a simple dispute over land- — -an issue that is traditionally subject to judicial review. To focus only on the narrow issue immediately presented for review, however, overlooks the serious intrusion on the conduct of foreign policy that will result from granting the requested relief. A complaint need not purport to challenge a fundamental executive branch policy to implicate separation of powers concerns.6
Injunctive relief might take two forms in this case. First, the scope of the Regional Military Training Center could be restricted to the designated 1500-2000 acres to which Ramirez originally agreed. Second, the construction and operation of the center on plaintiffs’ land could be enjoined.7 Both of these alternatives would essentially dictate to the executive branch the proper situs or scope of a Central American military training facility and severely restrict the executive’s authority to determine the use and disposition of military operations.
A judicial ruling may also hinder the executive’s conduct of foreign affairs by detrimentally affecting our relations with Honduras. The plaintiffs’ own declarations indicate at least that Honduran officials knew about, and acquiesced in, the construction and operation of the training center. If Hondurans are involved in the challenged activity in any way, even if only to the extent that they have knowledge of United States- activities, any injunctive or declaratory relief implicitly questions Honduran sovereignty. The potential for disruption of our relations with Honduras is not altered by the fact that the action is brought only against the United States officials. The court could end up embroiled in sensitive diplomatic matters.
This is not to say, of course, that all claims touching on foreign affairs in which injunctive relief is sought are nonjusticia-ble. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952), the Supreme Court affirmed a district court order enjoining the seizure of privately owned domestic steel mills. The President ordered the seizure to avoid a labor strike that he believed would jeopardize national defense during the Korean War. The Court concluded that the seizure of private property to avoid a domestic labor dispute was not authorized as an exercise of the President’s military power. 343 U.S. at 587-89, 72 S.Ct. at 866, 867.
*1549The circumstances in Youngstown differ significantly from those in the instant case. Although the seizure in Youngstown may have been related to military operations abroad, its primary effect was on domestic, and not foreign, affairs. As Justice Jackson recognized, there is an important distinction between the President’s “largely uncontrolled” power to conduct foreign affairs and his more limited power to master domestic affairs, even when those domestic affairs may affect a foreign venture. 343 U.S. at 635-36 n. 2, 642, 644-45, 72 S.Ct. at 870-871 n. 2, 873, 874-875 (Jackson, J., concurring). The Court has long emphasized that the executive’s discretion to manage foreign affairs is considerably greater than his power to control domestic matters.
Not only ... is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate, and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319, 57 S.Ct. 216, 220, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936).
The Court in Youngstown was therefore concerned with whether injunctive relief may appropriately issue to restrain the executive’s unlawful action with respect to domestic affairs where the domestic problem might have a secondary effect on foreign affairs. Youngstown does not imply that judicial action is appropriate where resolution of a controversy will directly impinge on the executive’s conduct of foreign affairs.
In this case, the injunctive relief sought would directly limit the executive’s discretion in conducting military affairs and diplomatic relations in Honduras. In contrast to the domestic setting of the seizure in Youngstown, the dispute here arises out of the operation of a military base, located within the borders of a foreign nation, created to train yet another foreign nation’s soldiers. Judicial action here would be tantamount to oversight of the executive’s military and diplomatic policy decisions in a foreign country. Separation of powers principles bar such an intrusion by the judiciary and render this controversy nonjusti-ciable.8
C
This controversy is also nonjusticiable with respect to plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment. Declaratory relief could lead to usurpation of Court of Claims jurisdiction and implicates similar concerns to those raised by injunctive relief.
A declaratory judgment can be enforced through a grant of compensatory or injunc-tive relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (1982). Because separation of powers principles preclude injunctive relief in this case, plaintiffs could seek only money damages for their alleged injury. Such an award would compensate plaintiffs for what is in essence a taking violation. Congress, however, has vested the Court of Claims with exclusive jurisdiction for such claims. To allow the district court to determine the government’s liability with respect to a taking *1550claim, even in the context of a declaratory judgment, would encroach upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. It would also have the concomitant effect of judicially expanding the limited jurisdiction of the district courts.9 See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 101 n. 4, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2645 n. 4, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (Rehnquist, J., concurring).
Moreover, similar concerns to those that counsel against injunctive relief apply to declaratory relief. Courts have often recognized the importance of our government’s speaking with one voice on matters pertaining to foreign affairs. Baker, 369 U.S. at 211, 82 S.Ct. at 706. A judgment declaring the executive’s construction and operation of the Honduran military center unlawful while leaving open the possibility of further judicial enforcement could inject uncertainty into our foreign affairs in Honduras. The consequence of such an abstract judicial statement on the propriety of our foreign military operations is, ' of course, impossible to predict. Embarrassment, confusion, and decreased confidence in the United States’ capacity to speak with one voice in foreign relations, however, are sufficiently likely to weigh heavily against granting the discretionary declaratory relief sought here.10
III. Conclusion
Because the relief requested in this case would require the court to intrude directly on the executive’s military and diplomatic affairs in a foreign country, I conclude this controversy is nonjusticiable. A remand for further discovery will lead the court only into the province of the executive. I would therefore affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs' case on the pleadings.
SCALIA, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges BORK and STARR join, dissenting:
In Old Testament days, when judges ruled the people of Israel and led them into battle, a court professing the belief that it *1551could order a halt to a military operation in foreign lands might not have been a startling phenomenon. But in modern times, and in a country where such governmental functions have been committed to elected delegates of the people, such an assertion of jurisdiction is extraordinary.1 The court’s decision today reflects a willingness to extend judicial power into areas where we do not know, and have no way of finding out, what serious harm we may be doing. The case before us could not conceivably warrant such unprecedented action.
I. The Tucker Act Deprives This Court of Jurisdiction Over the Present Suit
The majority’s decision seems to me destructive of important values of our governmental system primarily because it minimizes fundamental separation-of-powers concerns in making the judgment whether discretionary judicial relief can be provided. The opportunity for that error in judgment would never have been presented, however, if the court did not first ignore a limitation upon our jurisdiction.
Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1982), a plaintiff can sue the United States for monetary compensation in the Claims Court for a taking by a government official. Such relief is available only when the government official’s actions, whether or not tortious, were authorized. If they are authorized, and the taking is thereby an act of the United States for purposes of the Tucker Act requirement of monetary compensation, it is also an act of the United States for purposes of sovereign immunity — which bars the grant of specific relief against the official of the sort elsewhere provided to achieve judicial review of administrative action.2 These principles are set forth with the utmost clarity in Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 696-705, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1464-1469, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949). The holding of that case has recently been followed, and the case cited with approval, in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 2880, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984).3
The majority “find[s] it difficult to believe that a United States citizen would be banished to a damages remedy in the Claims Court if he were the victim of a similar ongoing violation of his constitutional rights within the United States.” Maj. op. at 1528. That difficulty can only be attributed to lack of appreciation that there is no violation of constitutional rights so long as just compensation is available, Larson and Monsanto, supra; and to disregard of Supreme Court precedent as clear as Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168 (1962), in which *1552the plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain specific relief against the allegedly wrongful occupation of their land by a Park Service officer was rejected on grounds of sovereign immunity.
The majority’s response to this is confusing. Some portions of the opinion appear simply to reject the principles of Larson and to revert to those of earlier cases which Larson squarely rejected. Thus, the majority expresses dismay at “the dissent’s blanket assertion that there is no violation of constitutional rights so long as just compensation is available,’ ” Maj. op. at 1524 n. 95, quoting the preceding paragraph of this opinion. That assertion, however, is not ours but Larson’s: “There is no claim that [the action challenged] constituted an unconstitutional taking.... There could not be since the respondent admittedly has a remedy ... in the Court of Claims.” 337 U.S. at 703 & n. 27, 69 S.Ct. at 1468 & n. 27. The majority’s ensuing protestation that it “cannot be the law” that “the government can deprive a citizen of any possession, and the citizen cannot challenge the government’s right to do it, but only question how much the citizen is to receive for losing his property,” Maj. op. at 1524 n. 95, is strikingly similar to the view expressed by Justice Douglas, dissenting from the Court’s reaffirmation of the Larson principles in Malone v. Bowdoin, supra, 369 U.S. at 650-51, 82 S.Ct. at 984-985.
Likewise indicative of a repudiation of Larson is the majority’s repeated reliance upon principles expressed in United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171 (1882), and Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947). As described by the Supreme Court in Malone, supra, those two cases represented one line of “seemingly conflicting precedents” which Larson “thoroughly reviewed” and between which it made “an informed and carefully considered choice.” 369 U.S. at 646 & n. 6, 82 S.Ct. at 983 & n. 6. The choice was: “While not expressly overruling United States v. Lee ... the Court in Larson limited that decision.” 369 U.S. at 647, 82 S.Ct. at 983. By persisting in reliance upon the approach set forth in Lee and Land, the majority simply disregards expressly superseding Supreme Court authority (Larson) which has been adhered to (Malone, supra, and Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 83 S.Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963)) in the face of precisely the arguments the majority makes here.
Elsewhere in its opinion, however, the majority takes a different tack. It appears to acknowledge the Larson principle that, if the taking is within the officer’s powers, the availability of just compensation totally eliminates the possibility of injunction; but seeks to avoid application of that principle by asserting that monetary compensation will not always constitute the “just compensation” that the Fifth Amendment requires. “[T]he gross inadequacy of money damages could justify injunctive relief when money alone would not constitute just compensation.” Maj. op. at 1527. “If the gap between [the injury claimed by Ramirez] and the monetary compensation available through a Tucker Act remedy is so great that an unconscionable injustice would be worked, effectively denying just compensation, then injunctive relief can be appropriate.” Id. at 1528. That “money alone [may] not constitute just compensation” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is a principle of breathtaking novelty. Since it has nothing to do with the authorization for the taking, it would presumably apply even when Congress itself enacted a statute expropriating a particular property or business. When monetary compensation would not constitute “just compensation,” the taking could not be effected. There is of course no authority whatever for such a limitation upon the eminent domain power. The majority’s quotation from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585, 72 S.Ct. 863, 865, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952), Maj. op. at 1527, is utterly inapposite, since it dealt not with the alleged unconstitutionally of a taking because monetary relief was inadequate, but rather with the inadequacy of a legal remedy. If the majority’s new interpretation of the taking clause prevails, one must *1553hope that the security of the nation never depends upon the government’s ability to seize property, such as Mr. Ramirez’s ranch is in the majority’s view, whose loss “money alone” can never assuage.
Finally, the majority attacks our straightforward application of the Larson principles by referring to Dronenburg v. Zech, 741 F.2d 1388 (D.C.Cir.1984). The principal relevance of that case to the present issue is that it was decided by a panel that included two of the judges who join in this dissent. The majority contends, in effect, that it is inconsistent to follow Larson here while holding in Dronenburg (pursuant to clearly binding prior case authority in this circuit) that an injunction against allegedly wrongful discharge from the military is not barred by sovereign immunity. The Dronenburg decision as to jurisdiction rested upon the proposition that the waiver of sovereign immunity adopted in the 1976 amendment to the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702, see note 2, supra, was not affected by the availability of a Tucker Act remedy for back pay. The majority concludes from this that Dronen-burg held that the Tucker Act “was ... not ... such a statute” as comes within § 702’s exception withholding the waiver of sovereign immunity where “any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Maj. op. at 1525. If Dronenburg had held this, it would have been plainly wrong. Both the Senate and House Reports on the amendment to § 702 (there was no Conference Report) explicitly refer to the Tucker Act as one of the statutes included within its exception:
Clause (2) of the third new sentence added to section 702 contains a second proviso concerned with situations in which Congress has consented to suit and the remedy provided is intended to be the exclusive remedy. For example, in the Court of Claims Act, Congress created a damage remedy for contract claims with jurisdiction limited to the Court of Claims except in suits for less than $10,000.[4] The measure is intended to foreclose specific performance of government contracts. In the terms of the proviso, a statute granting consent to suit, i.e., the Tucker Act, “impliedly forbids” relief other than the remedy provided by the Act. Thus, the partial abolition of sovereign immunity brought about by this bill does not change existing limitations on specific relief, if any, derived from statutes dealing with such matters as government contracts, as well as patent infringement, tort claims, and tax claims.
H.R.Rep. No. 1656, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 12-13 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 6121, 6133; S.Rep. No. 996, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 11-12 (1976) (emphasis added, footnotes omitted). In fact, however, Dronenburg did not contradict this legislative history. All it held was that the Tucker Act does not “impliedly forbid” specific relief with respect to tenure of federal employment. That proposition was well established when the sovereign immunity amendment to § 702 was adopted; it had been the law at least since Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957). See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 71, 94 S.Ct. 937, 943, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974). But it was also well established when the sovereign immunity amendment was adopted that the Tucker Act does forbid suit in “taking” cases, which are fundamentally different from employment tenure cases, “tied to the language, purpose, and self-executing aspects” of the Fifth Amendment, United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 401, 96 S.Ct. 948, 954, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976). When, therefore, the legislative history of the sovereign immunity amendment to § 702 specifically adopted the “existing limitations on specific relief” of the Tucker Act as one of the exceptions to waiver embraced by the proviso, it had the Larson line of cases *1554in mind. In acknowledging, in effect, that § 702 adopts Service v. Dulles, Dronenburg in no way holds that it does not equally adopt Larson,5
Since, then, the availability of a Tucker Act remedy does prevent us from giving the relief requested here, and since the point is jurisdictional, our first task must be to determine whether monetary relief for the unlawful acts of which the plaintiffs complain is available in the Claims Court. For reasons which I described at length in my vacated panel opinion and will not trouble to repeat here, I think it is. See Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 724 F.2d 143, 150-53 (D.C.Cir.1983). As suggested earlier, the question whether a government officer was acting sufficiently within his authorized powers to permit a Tucker Act remedy is precisely the same as the question whether he was acting sufficiently within his authorized powers to preclude injunctive relief against him; the two issues must be treated equivalently or some action would fall between the stools. In its approach to this question the majority again disregards Larson and reverts to the principles of earlier cases which Larson conclusively rejected. Thus, the majority continues to appeal to Land as a case “in which the Supreme Court disallowed any reliance on sovereign immunity when ‘the right to possession or enjoyment of property under general law is in issue, and the defendants claim as officers or agents of the sovereign.’ ” Maj. op. at 1526, quoting Land, supra, 330 U.S. at 737, 67 S.Ct. at 1012. But Larson repudiated that very proposition almost verbatim, denying that “an allegation that the actions of Government officers are wrongful under general law is sufficient to show that they are ‘unauthorized.’ ” 337 U.S. at 701, 69 S.Ct. at 1467.6 The majority interprets the authorization requirement to mean that there must be “congressional and constitutional grants of power to these defendants to make military acquisitions,” to “move troops in on a United States citizen’s property,” and to “conduct life threatening military exercises.” Maj. op. at 1524 & n. 95. Larson, however, which involved an alleged refusal by a federal officer to deliver over property that belonged to the plaintiff, simply asked whether there was any limitation on the officer’s delegated power to hold property; just as Malone, supra, *1555simply asked whether there was any limitation upon the Park Service officer’s authority to occupy real estate. The mere fact that the holding or the occupation was “a tort,” Larson, supra, 337 U.S. at 693, 69 S.Ct. at 1463, or “ ‘illegal’ as a matter of general law,” Malone, supra, 369 U.S. at 647, 82 S.Ct. at 983, and that there was no specific authorization for such “tortious” or “unlawful” action, did not establish the lack of authority necessary to permit injunction. The equivalent here is not whether these defendants are authorized to “make military acquisitions,” but whether they are authorized to conduct military training exercises abroad,7 with no specific limitation upon trespass or unlawful taking in the process.8
Ultimately, however, the majority’s response on the Tucker Act authorization issue is not contradiction but elegant agnosticism. That issue “is impossible for this court at this stage of the case to determine,” we are told, because the availability of a claim for relief under the Tucker Act “depends upon facts not yet ascertained and the nature of the congressional and constitutional grants of power to these defendants.” Maj. op. at 1524. But as to the latter, I have understood it to be precisely the function of this court to deter*1556mine the law, and at least when the powers of cabinet-level officers are at issue no more is required to perform that task than a walk to the statutes and regulations and some hard thought. As to the former — the “facts not yet ascertained” — it escapes me what additional necessary facts there might be. The issue is not, of course, whether the facts can be established, but whether, assuming as true the same facts set forth in the initial portion of the majority opinion, a Tucker Act remedy would lie. There is no apparent reason why those facts are inadequate, other than a desire to keep this ease alive. Despite the plaintiffs’ pro forma attempt to cast their claim as something other than a taking, e.g., a “seizure,” Complaint, Count I, Ramirez de Ar-ellano v. Weinberger, Civil No. 83-2002 (D.D.C. filed July 13, 1983), there can be no doubt that the occupation of their land for use as a training camp and destruction of its economic utility is a taking. Assuming, as the plaintiffs allege, that this taking has been effected by the cabinet-level officers named as defendants, in order to establish and operate a training base for Salvadoran soldiers, all that remains to be determined for Tucker Act purposes is whether that action was sufficiently authorized by law to justify attributing it to the United States. This may not be a simple question (though I think it is), but its difficulty has nothing to do with a lack of facts.
It is understandable that the plaintiffs in this suit have never contended that monetary relief under the Tucker Act is unavailable. One can sympathize, as well, with the majority’s desire to finesse the point; it would surely be unkind to deprive the plaintiffs of the monetary relief to which they are entitled, in order to keep alive the possibility of the equitable relief to which they are not. Since the issue is jurisdictional, however, and since nothing is lacking to decide it, agnosticism will not do. For the reasons set forth above, including the analysis of the conditions for Tucker Act recovery incorporated by reference from the panel opinion, this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.9
II. Shareholder Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged Facts Sufficient to Establish Standing
Standing is a second jurisdictional obstacle which the majority resolves incorrectly in major respects, making some highly undesirable law in the process. The standing problem here comes from the fact that title to the land allegedly taken by the defendants is in a Honduran corporation. In my view, that corporation has no rights under the United States Constitution with regard to activity taking place in Honduras and therefore cannot bring this lawsuit itself. See Pauling v. McElroy, 278 F.2d 252, 254 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.), cert, denied, 364 U.S. 835, 81 S.Ct. 61, 5 L.Ed.2d 60 (1960); L. Henkin, Foreign Affairs and The Constitution 267 (1972); cf. Cardenas v. Smith, 733 F.2d 909, 916-17 (D.C.Cir.1984) (dictum). In any event, the majority does not resolve that issue. Maj. op. at 1516. Instead it rests standing to sue on two bases. I do not quarrel with one of them, which applies only to plaintiff Ramirez: The complaint and affidavits assert that Ramirez resides on the ranch and has done so for more than twenty years — which, I believe, demonstrates that he has a lawful possessory interest under Honduran law in at least some of the property seized. He thus has a cognizable property interest in that land, which interest, since he is an American citizen, is protected by the Constitution. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 86-87, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 1997-1998, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 *1557(1972).10 The other ground, however, which applies to both Ramirez and the Puerto Rican corporations, is fundamentally wrong and requires response.11 The majority holds that Ramirez, who is sole owner of a Puerto Rican corporation, which in turn is co-owner with Ramirez of a second Puerto Rican corporation, which owns a Honduran corporation, which owns three other Honduran corporations, one of which owns the land at issue, and the other two of which own the cattle ranching and shipping businesses conducted on the land, has standing to sue for injury to his interest in the land and business as a shareholder; and that the Puerto Rican corporations have standing on the same basis. Maj. op. at 1518-1519.
The majority properly states that the inquiry concerning standing “must focus on whether the plaintiffs have a cognizable property interest in the assets in Honduras for the purposes of the constitutional violations claimed here.” Maj. op. at 1517. It resolves that inquiry as though it is solely a matter of federal law, pointing to instances in which federal courts have found shareholders and other beneficial owners to have a “cognizable property interest,” either for standing or other purposes, and then concluding that the plaintiffs here must have one as well. The proper method of inquiry is quite different: “ ‘Property interests ... are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.’ ” Ruckel-shaus v. Monsanto Co., supra, 104 S.Ct. at 2872, quoting Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161, 101 S.Ct. 446, 450, 66 L.Ed.2d 358 (1980), quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Therefore, at least in the absence of a federal statute to the contrary, the appropriate source for determining whether Ramirez and the Puerto Rican corporations’ interests in the land are “cognizable property” rights would surely be the law of Honduras where the land is located, where title is in all probability recorded, where the legal owners of the land and businesses are incorporated, where the businesses are being conducted, and where the alleged trespass occurred. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 147, 235, 304 (1971). If Honduras confers upon twice-removed shareholders like *1558Ramirez and one of the Puerto Rican corporations, or upon a once-removed shareholder like the other Puerto Rican corporation, property interests whose “dimensions are defined” in such fashion as to include the right to prevent an alleged trespass of this sort, then there is standing to bring this suit. If not, then there is no standing.
I do not know enough Honduran law to be able to answer this question, and I suspect the majority does not either. The plaintiffs made no averments and introduced no affidavits on the point; since it is their burden to allege facts sufficient to show standing, and since foreign law is a question of fact, this ground might suffice for dismissal of the shareholder claims. In fairness, however, they were not challenged on the point, and should be given an opportunity to make additional submissions. But that is quite a bit less than merely pronouncing standing, as the majority has incorrectly done.
Even if it were the function of the federal courts to create a system of shareholder rights for Fifth Amendment purposes, the system the majority has produced is either a practical disaster or an analytic monstrosity. Nothing in the majority opinion limits shareholder property rights to sole shareholders. The cases upon which the majority purports to rely for its new creation do not support such a limitation, and one of the Puerto Rican corporations in the present case would not have standing if such a limitation applied. Nor is there any suggestion of, or any rational basis for, limiting the new principle to shareholders in foreign corporations (which Ramirez himself is not). Or to the shareholders of corporations which themselves are unable to bring suit — both because that limitation also would come from nowhere and because the majority has explicitly reserved the issue whether the primarj corporations ra the present case can sue, Maj. op. at 1516. One can look forward, then, to suits against the United States and its officers by individual shareholders whenever in their view due process requirements with regard to corporate property have been ignored. The inconvenience of this regime for the government is exceeded only by its destructiveness to the corporate form itself. It effectively supplants, in Fifth Amendment cases, the general principle of corporate law that only management, or the shareholders by derivative actions with the ace°hipanying safeguards, may sue regarding injury to corporate assets. See Cowin v. Bresler, 741 F.2d 410 at 414-415 (D.C.Cir.1984). That would pro tanto eliminats the efficiencies generated by the separation of ownership and control which account for much of the success and popularity of the corporate form. (Of course multiP^e ownership of any property, when joined W1th control, raises the cost of entering into any transaction regarding that property.)
As stated earlier, however, the main problem is not that the majority has created an unsatisfactory system of shareholder rights, but that it presumed to create a system of shareholder rights at all. The shareholder’s interest in corporate assets should be treated as a property right for constitutional purposes, and he should be able to bring suit to protect it against federal government action affecting its value, exactly to the extent that he is able to bring suit against similar private action under the domestic law of the place of incorporation. That law governs the terms of the deal between shareholders and management, and among the shareholders themselves, regarding their rights in corporate assets. It defines the shareholder’s rights not only vis-a-vis management and other shareholders, but also vis-a-vis third parties — whether the corporation’s eontrac-tual partners or tortfeasors. Any other approach makes the consequences of corporate ownership, for the corporation itself, its shareholders, and those who deal with it, unpredictable.12
*1559The cases the majority cites do not support its opposite conclusion on this point. Nielsen v. Secretary of Treasury, 424 F.2d 833, 843 (D.C.Cir.1970), is said to stand for the proposition “that shareholders have a property interest in assets of a corporation,” and “that the blocking of a corporation’s assets in the United States could constitute a deprivation of the shareholders’ property,” Maj. op. at 1518. It does no such thing. In the passage referred to, the Nielsen court was not considering whether the shareholders had Fifth Amendment property rights in the assets of a corporation, but rather whether, assuming they had such rights, a United States government decision to block the assets (i.e., to withhold them temporarily but indefinitely), as opposed to a decision to vest the assets (i.e., to take them permanently), could amount to a deprivation of property sufficient to trigger application of the due process clause. The court concluded not, 424 F.2d at 839-46, and therefore did not reach, and explicitly reserved, the issue whether the shareholders’ rights could support a successful suit under the due process clause. Id. at 845.
If anything, the Nielsen opinion strongly suggested that the shareholders would not have standing, in that it took a strikingly different view from the majority here of the consequences of foreign incorporation and of the Constitution’s demands with regard to corporate share ownership. To appreciate that, a brief description of the case is necessary: The Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 5 (1970), provided that during time of emergency, the President may prohibit the transfer of any property subject to the United States’ jurisdiction in which any foreign country or a national thereof has an interest. Pursuant to that statute, the President had blocked funds belonging to a Cuban corporation deposited in a New York bank. Cuban refugees, who owned 750 of the 1000 shares of the corporation and because of their refugee status were not considered nationals of Cuba under the statute and regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 515.302(a) (1969), brought suit to enjoin the blocking as applied to what they claimed was their proportionate share of the assets. They claimed that the blocking deprived them of property without due process of law. 424 F.2d at 835-36. The court responded as follows:
In effect applicants argue that they are entitled to require the government to disregard the entity of the Cuban corporation, or its interest in the property held in the name of the corporation, and are entitled to have the rules regulating transfer of that property determined by reference to the position of the shareholders.
In our view disregard of the corporate entity and national character of the Cuban corporation owning the assets is not required either by the Constitution or by the unblocking statute____
In barest conceptual terms it has long been accepted as at least the general rule that the rights of those investing in a venture organized in corporate form are defined by the law of the place of incorporation, and that stockholders in a corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country submit, to that extent, to their governance by the law of a foreign country. See Restatement of Conflict of Laws II, §§ 296-310 (P.O.D. April 22, 1969).
These are not arid conceptions. A world where hopefully there will be increasing cooperation between citizens of different states has more, not less need of doctrines for determining the ground *1560rules governing their relationships. The choice of law of the place of incorporation has merit in terms of reasonableness and maximizing common ground of international understanding.
To recapitulate, even if our government had unilaterally vested the assets involved in this case, any claims by plaintiff resting on an assertion of illegality would encounter substantial problems, starting with the proposition that our government may well be able to accept the country of incorporation as establishing the nationality of a corporation having assets within our borders without being required to pierce the corporate veil.
Nielsen v. Secretary of Treasury, supra, 424 F.2d at 841-42, 845.
The majority likewise distorts Kaufman v. Societe Internationale pour Participa-tions Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A., 343 U.S. 156, 72 S.Ct. 611, 96 L.Ed. 853 (1952). It is quite true, as the majority states, that in that case “the Supreme Court permitted United States shareholders to intervene in a suit seeking recovery of corporate property confiscated by the United States under the Trading with the Enemy Act.” Maj. op. at 1518. The reason it did so, however, is that the Trading with the Enemy Act contained a clause “en-abl[ing] one not an enemy as defined in § 2 to recover any interest, right, or title which he has in the property vested,” which the Court interpreted (quite reasonably) to include a stockholder's interest in corporate assets. 343 U.S. at 160, 72 S.Ct. at 613. The statute imposed the requirement quoted by the majority that “when the Government seizes assets of a corporation organized under the laws of a neutral country, the rights of innocent stockholders to an interest in the assets proportionate to their stock holdings must be fully protected.” Id. at 159-60, 72 S.Ct. at 613, quoted by Maj. op. at 1518. That a statute may recognize such a claim in no way implies that it is a “property interest” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.
Bangor Punta Operations, Inc. v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R., 417 U.S. 703, 94 S.Ct. 2578, 41 L.Ed.2d 418 (1974), and First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 103 S.Ct. 2591, 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983), are even less apposite. The majority cites these cases for the proposition that “[t]he Supreme Court has consistently refused to allow mere corporate formalities to dictate whether the suing party in fact has a valid claim and a personal stake in the outcome of the case.” Maj. op. at 1519. Instead, what they stand for is that on some occasions (not “consistently”), when an independent source of law indicates that this is the proper course of action, a court will prevent a corporation from pressing a claim against a third party which would inure to the benefit of an individual shareholder who would himself be barred from asserting it. It is something of a leap from this to the conclusion that shareholders have a Fifth Amendment property interest in corporate assets. First National City Bank explicitly acknowledges, moreover, that in “issues relating to the internal affairs of a corporation,” as opposed to “the rights of third parties external to the corporation,” “[a]s a general matter, the law of the state of incorporation normally [governs].” 103 S.Ct. at 2597.
As for the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 95 S.Ct. 335, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974), which the majority claims, Maj. op. at 1518, “implicitly held that the sole shareholder of a corporation has a constitutionally protected property interest in corporate assets”: The only shareholder that asserted Fifth Amendment claims arising out of the reorganization was also a creditor of one of the reorganized corporations, and the Court did not pass on which status supported the claim. 419 U.S. at 107 n. 1, 117 n. 12, 95 S.Ct. at 341 n. 1, 345 n. 12; Connecticut General Insurance Corp. v. United States Ry. Association, 383 F.Supp. 510, 513 (E.D.Pa. 1974) (lower court opinion).
III. Equitable Principles Preclude the Requested Relief
Having ignored one jurisdictional restraint and distorted another, the majority *1561proceeds to treat the merits of this case with what seems to me an incomprehensible disregard of traditional principles of equitable discretion, bordering on if not surpassing the constitutional limits established by the principle of separation of powers. The inappropriateness of the relief sought here is so immediately apparent that plaintiffs’ claims might well serve to test the validity of existing legal principles rather than vice versa. Any system that would countenance judicial interference in military operations abroad, for a reason that simultaneously impugns the integrity and fairness of a friendly nation, at the instance of a plaintiff who has not sought traditional judicial relief in the country where the real estate in question is located and who in any event has a claim for money damages in the courts of this country—any system that would provide relief of this sort would need to be reexamined. In fact, however, the common sense constraints against the action the majority would entertain already exist.
A. Injunction
Because of its intrusiveness, injunction has always been an extraordinary remedy. Even when directed at private individuals and not (as here) aimed at “stop[ping the Government] in its tracks,” Larson, supra, 337 U.S. at 704, 69 S.Ct. at 1468, it is to be granted only at the court’s discretion. See Bonaparte v. Camden, 3 Fed.Cas. 821, 827 (C.C.D.N.J.1830) (No. 1,617); 7 Pt. 2 J. Moore, J. Lucas & K. Sinclair, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 65.18[3] at 134-41 (2d ed. 1984); C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2942 at 368-70 (1973). The separation of powers problems present here make this virtually a textbook case for refusing such discretionary relief. Two objections in particular seem irresistible.
The most important point is that the plaintiffs are asking for direct court interference with a military operation being conducted abroad. As the majority puts it, “[plaintiffs [did] not seek to prohibit the Regional Military Training Center from operating in Honduras. They merely ask the federal court to prevent the United States defendants from running military training operations on their property, which has not been lawfully expropriated.” Maj. op. at 1531. In other words, plaintiffs do not ask us to stop the military operation; they merely want us to move it from the site selected by the Defense Department (allegedly) as the most appropriate one. Or perhaps to tell the Defense Department it does not really need all the acreage it claims. While it is acknowledged that the land in question is being used for a training base, we do not know what other military purposes it may be designed to serve. If, for example, it had been the staging area for our recent military operations in Grenada, the injunction sought here could have caused incalculable harm. The majority’s apparent belief that the trial court should hold a hearing on exactly how harmful to our foreign and defense policies an injunction would be, Maj. op. at 1528-1529, is absurd. Even assuming that we are competent judges of such matters, which we are not, cf. Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10, 93 S.Ct. 2440, 2445, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973); Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 65-67, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 2651-2653, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981), we cannot expect or require the Commander-in-Chief to take us (much less the plaintiffs) into his confidence regarding the activities now in hand. See Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111, 68 S.Ct. 431, 436, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948). And without such knowledge, the fact is that we have no idea what damage to our national interests the discretionary and extraordinary relief sought here might produce. A proper understanding of equitable principles, informed by respect for the separation of powers, should lead us simply and abruptly to deny such relief.
The other set of difficulties requiring the denial of injunctive relief pertains to the Honduran government’s role in setting up and supervising the training camp, and the consequent effect of our decision on the United States’ relations with Honduras. As Judge Starr’s opinion amply demon*1562strates, on the basis of uncontroverted facts it is clear that the Honduran legislature has officially endorsed the establishment of a training camp, that the President of Honduras has signed a decree commencing expropriation of the plaintiffs’ land for that purpose, and that Honduran soldiers have been participating in and supervising the conduct of the training camp on plaintiffs’ land. Whether or not this suffices to invoke the act of state doctrine, it at least makes clear that the order sought here would have substantial foreign policy consequences. We need no additional factfinding to know that it will undermine Honduran confidence in the ability of the United States to speak and act with a single voice in the region, cast doubt upon the steadfastness of our commitment to our policies, and delegitimize the Honduran authorities’ participation in the training activities in the eyes of the Honduran people. Cf. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 710, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) (courts should not enter decrees which create the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question); Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 289, 73 S.Ct. 252, 257, 97 L.Ed. 319 (1952) (injunction inappropriate when it would “impugn foreign law”). Additional factfinding on this subject would convert the district court into a foreign policy forum.
The majority is unaffected by these military and foreign policy concerns, whose relevance, of course, ultimately rests upon the inappropriateness of judicial interference in matters that judges know little of, and that are preeminently the business of another Branch. Separation of powers concerns do not bar injunctive relief, the majority asserts, because “the foreign affairs context of Executive action cannot shield unlawful conduct from judicial inquiry.” Maj. op. at 1530. This is an utter non sequitur. The ability to decide a case has nothing to do with the propriety of granting an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. The panel opinion which this court vacated rejected the contention that the foreign affairs and military ramifications of this suit rendered it nonjusticiable on the basis of the political question doctrine. Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, supra, 724 F.2d at 147. It is quite a different thing, however, to say that inevitable, serious, adverse effects on our defense and foreign policy will not justify the withholding of discretionary and extraordinary relief. Contrary to the majority's view, the Supreme Court has indicated that justiciability concerns, including those related to separation of powers, “shade into those determining whether the complaint states a sound basis for equitable relief” and are relevant for the latter purpose. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 499, 94 S.Ct. 669, 677, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). See also Allen v. Wright, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3330, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).
The military and foreign affairs factors discussed above, and the serious incursion upon the powers of another Branch that ignoring them will entail, may well be enough, as Judge Tamm’s dissent argues, to render this injunction unconstitutional. I think it unnecessary to reach that constitutional point.13 It seems to me clear be*1563yond all doubt, however, that they are enough to make this injunction an abuse of discretion.
And there are other factors as well. Even if military and foreign affairs complications did not exist, the requested relief would contravene the so-called local action rule, under which courts generally will not enjoin a trespass in another jurisdiction. Ellenwood v. Marietta Chair Co., 158 U.S. 105, 107, 15 S.Ct. 771, 771, 39 L.Ed. 913 (1895). Contrary to the majority's suggestion that the rule represents no more than an “occasional deference in equity to the courts of the situs state,” Maj. op. at 1529, it is consistently observed by the great majority of jurisdictions of this nation. An-not., 113 A.L.R. 940 (1938); 42 AM.JuR.2d Injunctions § 151 (1969); 92 C.J.S. Venue § 38b (1955); Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 87 comment d (1971). Furthermore, even those few courts which have abandoned the local action rule vis-a-vis other states still recognize its validity where land in a foreign country is concerned. See Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Harrison, 220 Ark. 521, 523, 249 S.W.2d 994, 995-96 (1952). The rule rests in part upon the ancient but still vibrant notion that a nation’s control over the land within its borders is the most sovereign of its functions, with which no other nation should interfere, see 1 F. Wharton, Conflict of Laws § 278 at 636 (3d ed. 1905), and partly upon the more practical consideration that it is difficult to monitor compliance with such decrees in faroff lands. The latter traditional concern, which the majority denigrates, did not stem from the mistaken belief that “[cjourts ... monitor compliance with decrees by personal, on-site inspections,” Maj. op. at 1531, but rather from recognition that the chief witnesses will be abroad, beyond compulsory service, and even if willing to testify will be severely inconvenienced in doing so before a foreign court.
The majority points out that “[cjourts often properly issue equitable decrees involving property outside the jurisdiction of the court.” Maj. op. at 1529. That is true in respects not pertinent here—notably, where the property involved is personalty (which was the case in Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U.S. (9 Otto) 298, 25 L.Ed. 473 (1879), quoted by the majority, Maj. op. at 1529). Even when realty is involved, certain equitable decrees will issue as a matter of course, e.g., decrees requiring execution of a deed, which can be done, of course, in the state where the decree is rendered, regardless of where the land is found. But when it comes to enjoining a trespass in another jurisdiction, the great weight of authority, like the great weight of reason, supports the local action rule.
A further obstacle to issuance of the extraordinary remedy plaintiffs seek is the fact that they have made no effort, and have expressed their intent to make none, to obtain protection in the ordinary quarter from the trespass of which they complain— the courts of Honduras. July 14, 1983 Tr. at 52, Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, Civil No. 83-2002 (D.D.C.). I find it remarkable that these plaintiffs, four of which are Honduran corporations and the rest of which have voluntarily chosen to profit from the resources of Honduras by conducting ranching and shrimp packing operations there through Honduran corporations, should take initial appeal to the courts of this country with regard to a dispute concerning Honduran land. See generally Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147, 158-59 (2d Cir.1980) (en banc). The only thing more remarkable is that this court, though not constrained to act, should be willing to enter an injunc-*1564tive decree with regard to the possession and use of foreign land, and to intrude, with unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences, upon presidential control of military and foreign affairs, on behalf of plaintiffs who request this action as their first rather than last resort.
In my view, the above factors alone are more than enough to sink the plaintiffs’ case. The majority opinion, however, loads on additional ballast. It asserts the continuing availability of injunctive relief even if, in addition to all the foregoing, the plaintiffs can obtain monetary compensation in the courts of this country. See Maj. op. at 1524. This is truly a startling assertion. To quote the same passage from an opinion of Justice Frankfurter relied upon by the majority opinion, Maj. op. at 1523 n. 90:
Familiar as [the] remedy [of injunction] is, it remains an extraordinary reme-dy____ A plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction if money damages would fairly compensate him for any wrong he may have suffered.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, 343 U.S. at 595, 72 S.Ct. at 889-890 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
The majority suggests that this principle does not apply here because land is considered unique at common law; because plaintiff Ramirez would be losing his business, which is his life’s work and would also be considered unique at common law; and because the presence of the camp on his property is a threat to his personal security. Maj. op. at 1527-1528. The first two considerations may be sufficient to justify specific relief against private individuals, but not against the government. The grant of the power of eminent domain to the national government, and the Larson corollary, discussed supra, pages 1550-1551, that injunction is not available to prevent a taking by the United States— both of which apply to takings of land and businesses — clearly establish the principle that monetary compensation is the constitutionally prescribed accommodation between individual rights and collective needs. As for the risk to plaintiff Ramirez’s security: That is not a consequence of the taking, but of the plaintiff’s refusal to acquiesce in it. It is hard to believe that all governmental condemnation of property can be avoided by the simple expedient of refusing to abandon it.
The majority’s reliance upon Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, to demonstrate the propriety of equitable relief is surely misplaced. To begin with, that was not a case where the normal remedy of monetary relief was available. In granting the injunction against the President’s seizure of the steel mills, the Court not only did not assume that a suit for compensation would lie, but strongly implied the contrary, 343 U.S. at 585, 72 S.Ct. at 865. Since the President had repeatedly sought from Congress, and been denied, the power to seize the steel mills if a labor dispute arose during an emergency, it is most unlikely that the “authority” requirement for compensation could have been met. Moreover, even if monetary relief were available in Youngstown, it takes no high degree of legal skill to observe the following distinguishing features pertaining to the propriety of an injunction: (1) that taking over the operation of steel manufacturing plants is a good deal less military (and hence less archetypieally presidential) in character than conducting military training operations in and for the troops of militarily threatened allies; (2) that the foreign affairs component of seizing domestic steel mills is nil; and (3) that it is a good deal easier for a United States federal court to evaluate compliance with an injunction running to Youngstown, Ohio, than to the Municipality of Trujillo, Department of Colon, Honduras. In truth, Youngstown’s only relevance to this case is to establish that it is not always impermissible to enjoin Executive action assertedly taken for military reasons — a proposition no one contests.
B. Declaratory Judgment
The majority claims that even if an injunction is inappropriate or unavailable, the district court might properly be able to *1565grant the other relief plaintiffs have requested, a declaratory judgment. Maj. op. at 1532-1533. I disagree.
A declaratory judgment, like an injunction, is a discretionary remedy. Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co., 316 U.S. 491, 494-95, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 1175-1176, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942). Where it would have the same negative effects as an injunction, it should likewise be withheld. See Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 69-74, 91 S.Ct. 764, 766-768, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971); Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407 (1943). Since it must be assumed that officers of the Executive Branch will honor their oath to uphold the laws of the United States — without which assumption a declaratory judgment would always be a political statement rather than a judicial act — once a court takes it upon itself to pronounce that the actions challenged here are unlawful all of the adverse effects of injunction discussed above ensue. As the Supreme Court noted in Samuels v. Mackell, supra, either the defendants will feel bound by the declaratory judgment, in which case it would be open to the same objections as an injunction, or they will not, in which case it will “ ‘serve[ ] no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.’ ” 401 U.S. at 72, 91 S.Ct. at 768, quoting Public Service Commission v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 247, 73 S.Ct. 236, 242, 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952). The only element of my earlier analysis of equitable discretion affected by the use of declaratory order in place of injunction is one of the two grounds for the local action rule: the court would not have to oversee compliance with its order abroad (though it would still be inappropriately pronouncing upon the permissible use of another sovereign’s territory).
The Supreme Court has been especially careful to avoid letting declaratory judgments serve as substitute mechanisms for injunction as a means of usurping state functions. See Samuels v. Mackell, supra; Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, supra. In my view, the same high degree of scrutiny must be applied when the issue is the main objection to injunction here: usurping the functions of another Branch.
The majority states that a declaration of rights “could provide the defendants with options for compliance that a specific in-junctive order might not,” Maj. op. at 1532. The options the majority suggests are “to seek congressional authorization for their action, or to cause a lawful expropriation of the plaintiffs’ property, or to restrict activities to publicly held land, or to settle with the plaintiffs, or to take other appropriate action.” Id. I examine these briefly in turn:
1. “To seek congressional authorization for their action.” Does the majority really mean that all an Executive officer must do in order to comply with the law is to seek amendment of the law while he continues to break it? Surely the Secretary of Defense would be obliged, in light of the declaratory order the majority proposes, to halt operations on the plaintiffs’ lands while he seeks congressional action. Which is precisely what he could do under an injunction.
2. ■ “To cause a lawful expropriation of the plaintiffs’ property.” The same objection applies. In addition, since the word “expropriation” implies not merely a taking of the land’s use such as has allegedly occurred here, but acquisition of legal title, the majority evidently envisions our “causing” the government of Honduras to expropriate. The mere expression of the suggestion demonstrates why judges should not meddle in diplomacy.
3. “To restrict activities to publicly held land." It is incomprehensible how this differs at all from what would be required to comply with the injunction plaintiffs seek.
4. “Other appropriate action.” Since this is not specified, it is difficult to refute it in detail, but in light of the nature of the alternatives that have been specified I think it safe to reject this residual category on the principle of noscitur a sociis.
The majority’s disregard of jurisdictional obstacles and overriding of equitable con*1566straints are both prompted, it would appear, by an inflated notion of the function of this court, which produces stirring rhetoric but poor constitutional law. The problem is best exemplified by one of the majority’s responses to the act of state issue raised by Judge Starr — the novel suggestion that that doctrine may have no application in suits against the United States because “[a] balancing of the roles of the Executive and the Judiciary may produce a different outcome in those cases in which the Judiciary is called upon to curb unconstitutional excesses of its own Executive Branch.” Maj. op. at 1542. If applied in that context, the majority fears, the doctrine might “prevent the Judiciary from exercising its role in the tripartite system of government to remedy injuries to United States citizens caused by unconstitutional activities of the United States Executive Branch.” Id. The judiciary, in other words, has some special charter to keep the Executive in line, beyond its responsibility to protect individuals against unlawful private action. Thus, judicial power is at its zenith rather than its nadir when its assistance is sought against the President and his officers instead of private persons. This complete inversion of constitutional doctrine appears not only here but in other opinions of this court, which perceive a similar special mission to keep the Congress in line, see, e.g., Moore v. United States House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946 (D.C.Cir.1984); id. at 963-64 (Scalia, J., concurring). Whereas John Marshall was prepared to issue a writ against the Secretary of State despite the latter’s high public office, Marburg v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170-71, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), this court is especially willing to enjoin the Secretary of Defense because of that status. To a court imbued with such a philosophy, it is small wonder that concepts such as equitable restraint on the basis of interference with military and foreign affairs, and the act of state doctrine, have little meaning. Marshall was right and the majority is wrong. I dissent.
. The district court dismissed this case pursuant to Frd.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In granting a rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and is not permitted to rely on pleadings outside the complaint. I therefore recite only the facts presented in the complaint and the accompanying declarations.
. Although the majority notes newspaper articles suggesting that the Honduran government resisted the effort to locate the facility in Honduras, maj. op. at 1507, other articles suggest that Honduras wanted a training center, Attachment #2, N.Y. Times, Mar. 20, 1983, at A-19, col. —, A. at 16, or at least that the center would not have been built without Honduras’s agree*1546ment. Attachment # 1, Boston Globe, Mar. 27, 1983, at 1, col. —, A. at 15.
. The Honduran government has passed two resolutions pertaining to the issue of expropriation. En Banc Brief for Appellees, Addendums A, C. The legal implications of these resolutions have been addressed extensively in the majority’s opinion. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that we cannot ascribe any legal effect to these resolutions absent further factual development. Since I believe the controversy as presented in this case is not appropriate for judicial resolution, I see no need to discuss the effect of these Honduran resolutions or to seek further fact-finding to facilitate their interpretation.
. Indeed, plaintiffs could not seek such a remedy in the district court. Exclusive jurisdiction for monetary relief against the United States in excess of $10,000 lies in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1491(a) (1982).
. In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), the Court was primarily concerned with outlining the characteristics of issues nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine. The political question doctrine, in the strict sense, may pertain only to the nature of the question presented, and not to the effect of granting the relief requested. The same separation of powers concerns that give rise to the political question doctrine, however, are implicated where the effect of resolving a dispute infringes on the executive’s conduct of foreign policy. See Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 804 (D.C.Cir.1984) (Bork, J., concurring), petition for cert, filed, 52 U.S.L.W. 3922 (U.S. June 14, 1984) (No. 83-2052). Just as a court must refrain from resolving a question whose nature is political, so must it refrain from adjudicating a claim where the relief sought would intrude on the independence of the political branches.
. In Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 68 S.Ct. 431, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948), for example, the Court declined to review an administrative order, approved by the President, regarding assignment of foreign air routes. Although the complaint did not directly question a political judgment, the Court observed that assignment of foreign air routes raised issues concerning the conduct of foreign relations and national defense. Because the complaint indirectly, yet no less intrusively, challenged an executive judgment on foreign affairs, the Court held the order nonreviewable. 333 U.S. at 111-14, 68 S.Ct. at 436-437.
. Plaintiffs assert that they do not seek to enjoin generally the operation of a United States military facility but only the military activities on their land so long as that land has not been lawfully acquired. In either case, however, an injunction would have the same effect: halting the operation of a United States military facility in Central America, at least for a time.
. The majority states that there is a "long line” of cases permitting judicial relief for unlawful action by United States officials in the context of military and foreign affairs. Maj. op. at 1530. In determining that the instant case is nonjusti-ciable, I do not conclude that courts can never adjudicate claims involving the conduct of foreign affairs. See supra at 1548-1549. Where, however, the consequence of judicial action intrudes directly upon the executive’s ability to exercise discretion in foreign policy matters, the court must stay its hand. Significantly, the cases cited by the majority are either "just compensation” cases, in which the consequences of judicial action in no way impeded the exercise of executive discretion with respect to foreign affairs, e.g., United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., 344 U.S. 149, 73 S.Ct. 200, 97 L.Ed. 157 (1952); Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115, 14 L.Ed. 75 (1852); or arose in the domestic context, e.g., Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 2440, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S.Ct. 606, 90 L.Ed. 688 (1946); Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 53 S.Ct. 190, 77 L.Ed. 375 (1932).
. This point is not undermined by this court’s holding in Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959 (D.C.Cir. 1982), a case relied upon by the majority. Megapulse properly recognized the importance of "preserving the integrity of the Tucker Act ..." id. at 967, and noted that a district court has no power to adjudicate an action that in essence falls within the Court of Claims' exclusive jurisdiction.
. The original panel opinion in this case expressed similar separation of powers concerns with respect to the requested relief. Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 724 F.2d 143 (D.C.Cir. 1983), vacated, F.2d (1984). The panel’s analysis, however, rested on the traditional discretion of courts to grant or deny injunctive relief depending on the relative equities of the parties’ positions. The panel concluded that injunctive relief could not issue because intrusion into foreign affairs coupled with the possibility of impugning foreign law and the problems of monitoring compliance "establish a formidable obstacle which the equities of plaintiffs' case cannot overcome.” 724 F.2d at 150.
I cannot agree with the panel's reasoning. The panel’s reliance on traditional principles of equity implies that were the plaintiffs' case more compelling, equitable relief might be appropriate. The panel’s decision to affirm the dismissal, therefore, was not compelled by separation of powers principles but resulted from the court's exercise of its traditional equitable discretion. When there is a danger of a federal court exceeding its limited authority, constitutional principles of separation of powers, not a subjective assessment of the relative equities, should control a court’s decision whether to resolve a controversy. See Vander Jagt v. O'Neill, 699 F.2d 1166, 1184-85 (D.C.Cir.) (Bork, J., concurring), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 91, 78 L.Ed.2d 98 (1983).
Although I agree with Judge Scalia that constitutional issues ought to be avoided wherever possible, I believe Judge Scalia’s dissent effectively reaches and employs the separation of powers doctrine under the guise of balancing equitable concerns. Scalia, J., dis. op. at 1562-1563 & n. 13. I have chosen the tack presented in this dissent because I believe a forthright application of separation of powers principles precludes a court even from exercising such equitable discretion.
Finally, balancing the equities in this case could require the court to evaluate the necessity and urgency of operating the Center in its current location. Such an evaluation is properly and practically better left to the political branches. I would thus dismiss plaintiffs’ claim, not because of its adequate equitable support, but because it would carry the judiciary into matters reserved to the coordinate branches.
. Even the ancient Israelites eventually realized the shortcomings of judicial commanders-in-chief:
Now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations____ [W]e will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may govern us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
I Samuel 8:5, 19-20.
. Of course the theory of such judicial review was that the defendant, since allegedly acting ultra vires, was not acting as an officer of the United States, so that enjoining him would not be enjoining the sovereign. See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 219-20, 1 S.Ct. 240, 259-260, 27 L.Ed. 171 (1882). In this framework, it is clear how the availability of a Tucker Act remedy — premised upon the agent's acting intra vires — would preclude other relief.
The fiction of ultra vires was effectively eliminated by a 1976 amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, which overtly waived sovereign immunity in suits seeking relief other than money damages against federal officers. Pub.L. No. 94-574, § 1, 90 Stat. 2721 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1982)). That amendment, however, also provided: “Nothing herein ... confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought." As will be discussed more fully below, the legislative history unambiguously confirms that Congress deemed the Tucker Act to be such a statute. See generally Estate of Watson v. Blumenthal, 586 F.2d 925, 932-34 (2d Cir.1978).
. Monsanto, unlike Larson, involved an assertion that the statute under which the Executive acted was unconstitutional rather than an assertion that the Executive was misapplying the law. I think it a full revalidation of Larson, however, since there is no basis whatever, either in the Tucker Act or the APA, for drawing a distinction with regard to the waiver of sovereign immunity along such lines.
. The reference to the Court of Claims Act is puzzling. Although a footnote to the text indeed refers to the Court of Claims Act of 1855, ch. 122, 10 Stat. 612, that legislation did not do what the sentence says, but merely established a Court of Claims that would recommend private bills to Congress. The reference was probably intended to be to the Tucker Act.
. In one respect, it must be acknowledged, Dro-nenburg fell short of perfection: To support its jurisdictional holding it relied, 741 F.2d at 1390-1391, in part upon Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102, 107 (D.C.Cir.1981), which contains language to the effect that in none of its applications is the Tucker Act a statute that comes within the § 702 exception. In fact, Schnapper was even more specific, saying that
[t]he clarity and force of the legislative history [of the sovereign immunity amendment to § 702] leaves this court with no alternative but to conclude that all questions of the amenability of a federal officer to a suit for injunc-tive relief must be decided with reference to section 702, not Larson.
667 F.2d at 108. The Schnapper court appears simply to have overlooked both Reports’ explicit reference to the Tucker Act. That is understandable, since the case did lot involve the Tucker Act issue, and the entire discussion was dictum. The facts not only did not present any "taking” to which Larson could apply; they did not even produce an assertion, or leave room for the possibility of an assertion, that any Tucker Act claim would lie. Of course the dictum of Schnapper has been explicitly repudiated by the Supreme Court:
Equitable relief is not available to enjoin an alleged taking of private property for a public use, duly authorized by law, when a suit for compensation can be brought against the sovereign subsequent to the taking.
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., supra, 104 S.Ct. at 2880 (footnote omitted), citing Larson.
. In fact, Larson expressly overruled Goltra v. Weeks, 271 U.S. 536, 46 S.Ct. 613, 70 L.Ed. 1074 (1926), which was one of the cases Land cited to support the statement relied upon by the majority, see Land, supra, 330 U.S. at 731, 67 S.Ct. at 1009. Larson, supra, 337 U.S. at 700-01, 69 S.Ct. at 1466-1467. In place of Goltra (and the dicta in Lee and Land which are from the same line of authority) the Court in Larson reaffirmed the contrary principle announced by Justice Holmes in an earlier case which is incompatible with the theory of the majority here: “[T]he question of title was immaterial to the court’s jurisdiction. Wrongful the Secretary’s conduct might be, but a suit to relieve the wrong by obtaining the vessel would interfere with the sovereign behind its back and hence must fail.” Larson, supra, 337 U.S. at 700-01, 69 S.Ct. at 1466-1467 (footnote omitted), describing Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218, 34 S.Ct. 84, 58 L.Ed. 191 (1913).
. The majority opinion asserts that I "never consider[ ] whether there exists any statutory authorization for the kind of taking alleged to have occurred here." Maj. op. at 1524 n. 95. I take that criticism to mean that I fail to provide the sort of statutory authorization that will satisfy the majority’s distortion of the Larson "authorization” requirement discussed above. I shall not do that; but just in case the majority intends, in addition, to contest the obvious point that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Army Corps of Engineers are authorized to conduct military training exercises for troops of friendly foreign nations abroad, I refer to the following provisions:
22 U.S.C. § 2347 (1982) provides:
The President is authorized to furnish, on such terms and conditions consistent with this chapter as the President may determine ..., military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries. Such training and education may be provided through—
(1) attendance at military educational and training facilities in the United States (other than Service academies) and abroad____ 22 U.S.C.A. § 2311(a) (Supp.1984) provides:
The President is authorized to furnish military assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, to any friendly country or international organization, the assisting of which the President finds will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace and which is otherwise eligible to receive such assistance, by—
(2) assigning or detailing members of the Armed Forces of the United States and other personnel of the Department of Defense to perform duties of a noncombatant nature____ 22 U.S.C. § 2381(a) (1982) provides:
The President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this chapter through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. Executive Order No. 10973, 26 Fed.Reg. 10,469 (1961), reprinted as amended in 3 C.F.R. 318 (1969), delegates authority under these provisions to, among others, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.
. Once action within the general scope of the officer’s duties is established, it devolves upon the plaintiff who asserts that the officer "[is] exceeding his delegated powers ... in occupying the land in question” to "set out in his complaint the statutory limitation on which he relies.” Malone v. Bowdoin, supra, 369 U.S. at 648 & n. 9, 82 S.Ct. at 984 & n. 9. That was not done here. And even the majority’s attempt to supply the deficiency at the appellate stage is unsuccessful. The majority suggests, Maj. op. at 1524 & n. 96, that the requisite limitation may be found in 10 U.S.C. § 2676 (1982) which provides that ”[n]o military department may acquire real property not owned by the United States unless the acquisition is expressly authorized by law.” This is one of several instances in which the majority’s analysis displays a willingness to produce horrendous effects in other areas in order to reach the desired disposition here. If the majority were correct concerning the interpretation of § 2676, the safety net of Tucker Act relief in so-called inverse condemnation actions against the military would be eliminated. See generally Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 125-36, 95 S.Ct. 335, 349-355, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974). Of course the large number of suits imposing Tucker Act liability upon the military despite this statute show that the majority is wrong. See, e.g., Branning v. United States, 654 F.2d 88, 228 Ct.Cl. 240 (1981); Foster v. United States, 607 F.2d 943, 221 Ct.Cl. 412 (1979). The provision is obviously meant to control the military’s use of unrestricted appropriated funds for the acquisition of property, and has nothing to do with a taking of the sort at issue here.
. The district court has Tucker Act jurisdiction over claims for less than $10,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (1982), but that jurisdictional limit is exceeded by the acknowledged value of the taking for which the complaint seeks full relief. I would not adopt the alternate course of transferring the case to the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1631 (Supp.1984) in light of the fact that the plaintiffs have not specifically sought monetary relief and there is no impending time bar that would prevent their refiling in the *1557Claims Court after dismissal. Cf. Eccles v. United States, 396 F.Supp. 792, 796-97 (D.N.D.1975).
. The majority asserts, Maj. op. at 1519 n. 75, that it is inconsistent to accept the proposition that under Honduran law Ramirez’s possession of land with approval of the title-holder (fairly established by the pleadings) gives him a legally cognizable right to preserve that possession against strangers, while not similarly accepting the proposition that under Honduran law Ramirez’s ownership of corporate stock gives him a legally cognizable right in the corporation’s land. It seems to me that the former proposition is reasonably embraced within the fact that Honduras recognizes private ownership of land and the power of its owner to permit or forbid its use by others — all of which was shown by the uncontested allegations here. Indeed, even without such support the proposition is an extreme example of what the Supreme Court described in Cuba R.R. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473, 478, 32 S.Ct. 132, 132, 56 L.Ed.2d 274 (1912), in a statement which has been generally criticized, but which, if ever valid, would be valid here:
It may be that in dealing with rudimentary contracts or torts made or committed abroad, such as promises to pay money for goods or services, or battery of the person or conversion of goods, courts would assume a liability to exist if nothing to the contrary appeared ____ Such matters are likely to impose an obligation in all civilized countries.
If I am wrong, however, my error is as nothing compared with the majority’s holding on the point of shareholder rights — which, if properly based in law, assumes to be Honduran law what is not uniformly accepted (if accepted at all) among the states of this country, much less "in all civilized countries.”
. The mind reels backward before the majority’s complaint, Maj. op. at 1516 n. 60, that I should not enter upon this discussion since, having agreed that Ramirez has standing as an individual, I have conceded the only issue that need be resolved. That is true. Just as true as the fact that when the majority found that Ramirez had standing as an individual, Maj. op. at 1519-1520, it decided the only issue that need be resolved. Apparently, the majority is to be free to set forth unnecessary alternate holdings, to which dissenters, out of regard for judicial restraint and economy, should not reply.
. The majority's impassioned reference to "lost" or "stripped” rights, see, e.g., Maj. op. at 1517 n. 63, disregards the principle that something cannot be lost until it is first found, and the related maxim that it is impossible to doff what has not been donned. Shareholder rights *1559in corporate assets do not exist in the abstract; they are found within a legal framework creating and defining the corporate structure, which is erected by the law of the place of incorporation. The majority writes as though I would hold that no American shareholder in a foreign corporation could have rights in the corporate assets protected by the Constitution. Not so. Such rights can exist if they are provided for under local law. Defining the contours of constitutionally cognizable property interests by reference to Honduran law is no more peculiar than doing so by reference to the law of Indiana. See Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791,_, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2711, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983).
. Judge Tamm addresses the constitutional issue because he believes that "reliance on traditional principles of equity implies that were the plaintiffs' case more compelling, equitable relief might be appropriate.” Tamm, J., dissent at 1550 n. 10. I think it does not. It only implies that if and when traditional equitable principles would not preclude relief (for example, if a statute were enacted eliminating our discretion in the matter), we would then confront the constitutional issue Judge Tamm addresses. It is of course the better practice not to enter upon constitutional considerations needlessly. The approach I take of resolving first the permissibility of relief under traditional doctrines of equitable discretion is similar to the approach taken by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54, 91 S.Ct. 746, 755, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). There the Court explicitly reserved the question whether a statute barred entry of an injunction, and instead denied it on the basis of equitable factors. There is all the more reason to proceed in this fashion when the issue avoided by proceeding with equitable factors first is a constitutional one.
I think it reasonable to depart from this sound practice in dissenting from the attempt of a majority opinion or a line of cases to convert a constitutional doctrine into an equitable discre*1563tion. If in the present case, for example, the majority were to find that a foreign corporation had standing to sue for a violation of the due process clause abroad, but that the foreign character of a corporation justifies the denial of equitable relief, I would not feel constrained to avoid the constitutional issue by going along on the equitable ground. That was the situation prompting Judge Bork’s concurrence in Vander Jagt v. O’Neill, 699 F.2d 1166, 1182-85 (D.C.Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 91, 78 L.Ed.2d 98 (1983), cited in Tamm dissent at 1550 n. 10, with which I have elsewhere expressed my basic agreement, see Moore v. United States House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946, 956-65 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (Scalia, J., concurring).