scholarly journals Jam v. International Finance Corp.

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-811
Author(s):  
Chimène I. Keitner ◽  
Scott Dodson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Finance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Foreign Governments

In Jam v. International Finance Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA) affords international organizations (IOs) the same immunity from suit in U.S. courts that foreign governments currently enjoy under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), which codifies the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) had argued that the IOIA, which grants international organizations the “‘same immunity’ from suit … ‘as is enjoyed by foreign governments’” (p. 15), should be understood to provide international organizations with absolute immunity, which it argued foreign governments enjoyed prior to the United States’ explicit adoption of the restrictive theory in 1952. Under the restrictive theory, a foreign state is immune from suit for its sovereign acts (acta jure imperii), but not for its commercial acts (acta jure gestionis). By interpreting language in the IOIA as granting the “same immunity” to international organizations as foreign governments enjoy at the time the suit is filed, the Supreme Court aligned the regime for IO immunity with that of foreign state immunity, except in cases where the IO's founding charter provides a different rule or where the executive branch has explicitly limited immunity. It remains to be seen what IO activities are deemed “commercial” under this regime and what types of transactions are found to have a sufficient nexus to the United States to fall within the FSIA's commercial-activity exception.

Jam v. International Finance Corp. (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 646-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Perkins ◽  
Sally Pei
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Finance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Importance ◽  
The U.S

On February 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Jam v. International Finance Corp., a case of critical importance for international organizations. The question presented in Jam was whether U.S. law affords international organizations absolute immunity from suit in the United States, or whether international organizations instead are entitled to only the more limited or “restrictive” immunity that applies to foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

“I Prefer Panthers to Pigs”

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean L. Malloy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Black Panther Party ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Malcolm X ◽  
National Organization ◽  
Foreign Governments

This chapter looks at how the Black Power pioneers of the early 1960s discovered that relations between minority groups in the United States and the foreign governments or international organizations to which they appealed were seldom conducted on equal terms. While the mushrooming growth of the Black Panther Party (BPP) as a national organization in 1968 gave the party more leverage than Malcolm X or Williams had enjoyed as individuals, the Panthers still interacted with their potential state-level partners as supplicants rather than as equals. The ad hoc, person-to-person diplomacy that formed the foundation of these relationships often revealed ideological schisms both within the party and between the BPP and its potential allies.

Sabbatino Resurrected: The Act of State Doctrine in the Revised Restatement of U.S. Foreign Relations Law

1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malvina Halberstam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
The Supreme Court

Among the more controversial provisions of the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), are the sections dealing with the act of state doctrine in Tentative Draft No. 4. Section 428 provides: “Subject to §429, courts in the United States will refrain from examining the validity of an act of a foreign state taken in its sovereign capacity within the state’s own territory.” This provision, of course, is based on the Supreme Court decision in Sabbatino. The Court there stated, “the Judicial Branch will not examine the validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government” even if it is alleged that the taking is contrary to international law.

El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates and Embassy

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 689-702
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Civil Servant ◽  
The United States ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Employment Contract ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Law

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Restrictive immunity — Proceedings with respect to employment contract — Whether United Arab Emirates immune from suit — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Section 1605(a)(2) — Commercial activity exception — Whether applicable — Whether plaintiff civil servant under Act — Whether plaintiff’s work involving exercise of distinctly governmental powers — Nature of work — Irrelevance of purpose — Whether Act shielding United Arab Emirates from suit — The law of the United States

scholarly journals Uniformity: The Role of States (U.S. and Foreign) in Environmental Protection Post-Intertanko and Erika

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-154
Author(s):  
Laurie Crick Sahatjian
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Washington State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
State Regulations ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT On March 2, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected certain Washington State regulations of oil tankers, clarified the federal interest in regulating interstate navigation, and remanded to lower courts certain other state regulations for a determination of their validity in light of the “considerable federal interest at stake.” On December 12, 1999, the oil tanker Erika broke up and caused over 10,000 tons of oil to wash up on France's coast. The ultimate impact of this incident, and the extent of the reaction of the European Community (EU), remains to be seen. These two events epitomize the ongoing international struggle between the benefits of uniformity and the political imperatives brought on by maritime casualties. This paper will discuss the impact of both. The Intertanko decision clarified that the United States is to speak with one voice on matters of foreign affairs and foreign policy, including international maritime affairs. The international implications of the case were of such great importance that fourteen foreign governments, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Greece, and Japan, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn Washington State regulations on the grounds that the regulations at issue were incompatible with the principles of uniformity and reciprocity that have long been agreed by the United States and other maritime nations as key to adopting, implementing, and enforcing effective international standards and regulations for ships, including shipboard measures for protecting the marine environment. This paper will first discuss the impact of the Intertanko decision on the role of individual states. It will then address the participation of foreign governments in the legal system of the United States to further international goals, including issues considered significant enough to compel fourteen governments to participate as amici in the Supreme Court's consideration of the case. It will also address the continuing threat to uniformity resulting from notorious spills, including the Erika disaster and the EU reaction thereto. Finally, the paper will suggest steps that must be taken at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other international bodies to ensure continuing preservation of uniform international regulation of shipping.

International Immunities in English Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 643-663
Author(s):  
Philippa Webb
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Incremental Development ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The North ◽  
The United Kingdom

This chapter sets out the approach of the courts of England and Wales (English courts) to the immunities of states, foreign officials, and international organizations. It discusses similarities with and differences from other jurisdictions, with a focus on the United States as the other key influence in the development of the restrictive doctrine of state immunity. The United Kingdom has engaged in incremental development of the law on immunity as compared to the more sui generis developments in the North America and the activist approach driven by domestic constitutional norms or universal jurisdiction legislation in continental Europe. The United Kingdom State Immunity Act, underpinned by four decades of interpretation and practice, can be said to represent a middle ground in the evolving landscape of immunity.

The Power of the Executive Branch of the United States Government to Violate Customary International Law

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 913-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Fishing Vessels ◽  
Compensatory Damages

In its decision in The Paquete Habana, the United States Supreme Court wrote that customary international law is part of the law of the United States to be administered by the courts, “where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision.” The U.S. capture of the foreign fishing vessels in question was determined to have violated customary international law protecting enemy fishing vessels in time of war, and the Supreme Court ordered that compensatory damages were due. The remedy was ordered, notwithstanding the fact that the capture was undertaken to enforce a presidential proclamation establishing a naval blockade of Cuba. The arguments of the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorney General supporting the capture went unheeded.

Establishment of the International Finance Corporation: A Case Study

1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. E. Matecki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Development ◽  
International Finance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Organization ◽  
United States Government ◽  
International Finance Corporation ◽  
States Government

This article presents briefly the findings of a case study in which two questions are investigated:a) Did the idea of an International Finance Corporation, first publicly expounded by the United States International Development Advisory Board, have its source in a United States agency or in an international organization?b) What were the causes of the modification of policy announced by the United States government on November II, 1954, when it decided to support the establishment of the International Finance Corporation, and did international organizations have any part in bringing about this change of policy?

7 Immunity, 7.9 OSS Nokalva, Inc. v European Space Agency , United States Third Circuit decision, 617 F.3d 756 (3d Cir. 2010)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boon Kristen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
European Space Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Third ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Space Agency ◽  
Over Time

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the long-held assumption that international organizations are entitled to absolute immunity under the domestic International Organizations Immunities Act (‘IOIA’). The legal question raised by this case is: does the language of the IOIA allow for the incorporation of subsequent changes to sovereign state immunity thereby conferring a restrictive, not absolute, immunity upon international organizations? The court applied the same concept of restrictive immunity to international organizations as has been developed and applied to sovereign states. This case has important implications for the evolution of immunities of international organizations over time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document