Chapter-10-Of-Digest-Final.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Table of Contents CHAPTER 10............................................................................................................................ 374 Privileges and Immunities ..................................................................................................... 374 A. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT........................................................... 374 1. Jurisdiction and Venue under the FSIA in Actions to Enforce Arbitral Awards ............. 374 2. Exceptions to Immunity from Jurisdiction: Commercial Activity .................................. 379 3. Service of Process ......................................................................................................... 386 a. Harrison v. Sudan ...................................................................................................... 386 b. Salini v. Morocco ...................................................................................................... 389 4. Execution of Judgments against Foreign States and Other Post-Judgment Actions ......... 389 a. Attempted attachment of property protected by the Vienna Convention ...................... 389 b. Restrictions on the Attachment of Property under the FSIA and TRIA ........................ 396 c. Constitutionality of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 409 d. Propriety of monetary contempt sanctions under the FSIA ......................................... 413 B. IMMUNITY OF FOREIGN OFFICIALS ................................................................... 420 1. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 420 2. Samantar ...................................................................................................................... 420 3. Immunity of Rabbinical Judges and Administrator ........................................................ 425 C. HEAD OF STATE IMMUNITY .................................................................................. 427 1. President Xi of China .................................................................................................... 427 2. Prime Minister Modi of India ........................................................................................ 429 D. DIPLOMATIC, CONSULAR, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES .. 431 1. Consular and Diplomatic Immunity ............................................................................... 431 a. Rana v. Islam et al ..................................................................................................... 431 b. Waiver of immunity: Ambassador Lippert .................................................................. 434 2. Determination under the Foreign Missions Act ............................................................. 435 3. Enhanced Consular Immunities ..................................................................................... 436 E. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS .................................................................... 437 1. Georges v. United Nations ............................................................................................ 437 2. All Craft Fabricators, Inc. v. ATC Associates Inc .......................................................... 446 3. Gallo v. Baldini ............................................................................................................ 448 4. Zuza v. Office of the High Representative ...................................................................... 450 5. Immunity of UN in Bankruptcy Proceeding .................................................................. 454 Cross References ................................................................................................................... 456 374 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW CHAPTER 10 Privileges and Immunities A. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441, 1602–1611, governs claims of immunity in civil actions against foreign states in U.S. courts. The FSIA’s various statutory exceptions to a foreign state’s immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, set forth at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605(a)(1)–(6), 1605A, and 1607, have been the subject of significant judicial interpretation in cases brought by private entities or persons against foreign states. Accordingly, much of the U.S. practice in the field of sovereign immunity is developed by U.S. courts in litigation, to which the U.S. government is not a party and in which it does not participate. The following section discusses a selection of the significant proceedings that occurred during 2015 in which the United States filed a statement of interest or participated as amicus curiae. 1. Jurisdiction and Venue under the FSIA in Actions to Enforce Arbitral Awards On February 6, 2015, the United States submitted a letter brief as amicus curiae in a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Intergral, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Pemex-Exploración y Producción, No. 13- 4022 (2d. Cir.). Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Intergral, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“COMMISA”), a Mexican subsidiary of a U.S. corporation, sued in federal court to enforce an arbitral award against Pemex-Exploración y Producción (“PEP”), a subsidiary of the state-owned oil company of Mexico. The district court confirmed and increased the amount of the award, despite the fact that a Mexican court had nullified the award. Excerpts follow (with citations to the record omitted) from the sections of the U.S. brief discussing jurisdiction and venue under the FSIA. The sections of the brief discussing the district court’s errors in declining to recognize the nullification of the award and in 375 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW increasing the amount of the award are excerpted in Chapter 15. The letter brief is available in its entirety at http://www.state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm. * * * * I. The District Court’s Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction Was Flawed: The FSIA Incorporates Requirements That Meet Constitutional Standards, If Applicable The district court held that it had personal jurisdiction over PEP on the theory that a foreign state instrumentality has no due process rights, and that PEP’s actions in connection with issuing debt instruments in the New York financial markets were sufficient to satisfy any applicable fairness or comity requirements. In the view of the United States, the district court’s analysis reflects a misunderstanding of the FSIA and erroneously relies on PEP’s connection to New York’s financial markets. In holding that PEP lacks due process rights, the district court relied on Frontera Res. Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic, 582 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2009), where this Court held that, because the jurisdictional requirements of the FSIA were met in an action against a foreign state and its state-owned corporation, the court did not need to engage in a separate due process inquiry. The Court reasoned that a foreign state is not a “person” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause, and that the same is true for a state-owned corporation so controlled by the state as to be its “agent” or “alter ego” under First Nat’l City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 626– 27 (1983). Frontera, 582 F.3d at 399- 400. However, this Court explicitly declined to decide whether a state instrumentality that is juridically separate from the foreign state is entitled to due process protections, or what such protections would consist of in a case brought under the FSIA’s arbitration exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6). Id. at 401. Compare GSS Grp. Ltd. v. Nat’l Port Auth., 680 F.3d 805, 817 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (holding that separate agencies and instrumentalities of a foreign state are entitled to due process protections, including a requirement of minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction); First Inv. Corp. of Marsh. Is. v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd., 703 F.3d 742, 748–52 (5th Cir. 2012) (same). This Court need not and should not reach the constitutional question whether a foreign state corporation has any due process rights, because exercising jurisdiction over PEP is consistent with due process. The FSIA’s jurisdictional provisions themselves incorporate a nexus requirement that should be sufficient to satisfy any constitutional standard that might apply. Moreover, even if a separate analysis were required, as discussed further below, it appears that the exercise of jurisdiction in this case would satisfy constitutional standards. The FSIA “comprehensively regulat[es] the amenability of foreign nations to suit in the United States.” Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493 (1983). Section 1330(b) provides that personal jurisdiction “shall exist” over a foreign state or its agency or instrumentality if an exception to immunity in Section 1605 applies and service has been made under Section 1608. 28 U.S.C.§ 1330(b). As the legislative history elaborates, “[t]he requirements of minimum jurisdictional contacts and adequate notice are embodied” in the FSIA. H.R. Rep. No. 94-1487, at 13 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6612. Each of Section 1605’s exceptions to immunity “require[s] some connection between the lawsuit and the United States, or an express or implied waiver by the foreign state of its immunity from 376 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL