DOCSLIB.ORG

Background Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Background Guide 1 BACKGROUND GUIDE 2 THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE President: Stephanie Nassar Vice President: Tala Karkanawi Court Administrator: John Sakr 3 Table of Contents o Letter from the Secretary General ………………………………………………………………….5 o Letter from the Chair ……………………………………………………………………………………..6 o Committee Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………..7 I. International Court of Justice …………………………………………………………………………7 A. History of the ICJ: Mandate and Functions…………………………………………7 B. Organization of the ICJ……………………………………………………………………….7 II. BEYMUN 2021 – Fifth Edition………………………………………………………………………….9 III. Special Rules of Procedures ……………………………………………………………………………9 A. Roll call ………………………………………………………………………………………………9 B. Opening Statements ………………………………………………………………………….10 C. Presentation of Evidence …………………………………………………………………..10 D. Judges’ Deliberation …………………………………………………………………………..11 E. Rules on Draft Submissions ………………………………………………………………..11 F. Closing Statements……………………………………………………………………………..12 G. Voting Procedure ……………………………………………………………………………….13 H. Position Paper…………………………………………………………………………………….13 IV. Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………14 o Topic: Certain Iranian Assets –1957 Treaty of Amity between USA and Iran……15 I. Timeline of Events and History of the Topic…………………………………………………….15 II. Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights Between USA and Iran…………………………………………………………………………………….16 III. The Bank Markazi v. Peterson Case…………………………………………………………………19 IV. Complicated Past: US-Iran Nuclear Relations………………………………………………….19 V. Stands ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………20 A. USA……………………………………………………………………………………………………20 1. US Administrations………………………………………………………………………..20 a. Obama’s Administration……………………………………………………………………………..20 b. Trump’s Administration………………………………………………………………………………20 c. Biden’s Administration ………………………………………………………………………………21 2. USA Preliminary Objections…………………………………………………………..22 B. Iran……………………………………………………………………………………………………24 1. Iranian Administrations ………………………………………………………………24 a. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ………………………………………………………………………………..24 b. Hassan Rouhani …………………………………………………………………………………………….25 2. What is at Stake and Iran’s Stand on US Preliminary Objections….25 VI. Applicable Legislations……………………………………………………………………………………26 VII. Historical Procedure ………………………………………………………………………………………27 VIII. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….28 IX. Helpful Resources…………………………………………………………………………………………..29 X. Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………………………….30 4 List of Figures: Figure 1:The 1955 Treaty Of Amity Was The Foundation For Iran-Usa Relationships, Exhibited Above By U.S. Secretary Of State John Kerry And Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif At The Un Headquarters In 2016. Https://Www.Flickr.Com/Photos/Statephotos/ ................................................................ 2 Figure 2: The Bank Markazi Headquarters Tower, Tehran, Iran. Www.Tehrantimes.Com ...... 2 Figure 3: Three Most Recent Presidents Of The United States Https://Arc-Anglerfish- Washpost-Prod- Washpost.S3.Amazonaws.Com/Public/Bypdv5uveei6vavuzdnrmh7w4u.Jpg ................... 2 Figure 4: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (L-2) Shakes Hands With Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani (R-2) As Revolutionary Guards' Ground Forces Commander Mohammad Pakpour (R) Looks On During The 21st Nationwide Assembly Of The Islamic Revolution Guardian ................................................................................... 2 Figure 5: Us Sanctions' Influence On The Iranian Economy, Https://Ichef.Bbci.Co.Uk/News/640/Cpsprodpb/Bd7a/Production/_110060584_Iran_Ec onomic_Growth_Nov_2019_976_2x-Nc.Png ..................................................................... 2 Figure 6: Zarif Asked European Union To Coordinate Synchronized Return Of Washington And Tehran To Nuclear Deal (Afp), Https://Thearabweekly.Com/Iranian-Fm-Asks- Europe-Choreograph-Return-Nuclear-Deal ....................................................................... 2 5 Letter from the Secretary General Dear Sir or Madam, I am pleased to announce the official return of the Beirut International Model United Nations Conference, making this our 6th official debut, and commencement of our long road to BEYMUN 2021. With more exciting and intellectual surprises on the way, it is our absolute pleasure to invite your institution and students to join us at one of the most exceptional, cultural, and educational experiences in the Middle East. As we face one of the world’s most challenging times, the entire BEYMUN 2021 team has made it a primary focus to empower and give back to the communities that have lost so much hope and spirit. Ones that have found themselves struggling to regain their drive, passion, and resilience to become the future change makers of our planet. With a pandemic on the loose, international instability, and each and every individual’s lives being lived on a day to day basis, we took it upon ourselves to not only create a successful conference, but an outlet for brilliant minds to regain their spirit and remember how important their voices are. Thus, our theme for the BEYMUN 2021 conference is “Focusing Inwards, Channeling Outward, Steering Forward.” We truly believe in the importance of reevaluating and revisiting our current circumstances, politically, socially, and economically, and using our accumulated knowledge to change the way our world is, and foster a better future for us all. This is the mentality and environment we hope to harvest within this year’s conference, one filled with hope and motivation for a better tomorrow. We look forward to welcoming you with open arms on our journey to an empowered and intellectual 3-day experience! Sincerly, Annabelle Ghanem Secretary General of Beirut International Model United Nations 2021 6 Welcome Letter from the Chair International Court of Justice Dear Judges, Welcome to the International Court of Justice at Beirut International Model United Nations Fifth Edition! My name is Stephanie Nassar and I’m delighted and honored to serve as your Chair and the President of the International Court of Justice. Currently, I am kicking off my last semester as an Economics Senior minoring in Political Sciences. Over the past two years, I developed a profound interest in International Law and Conflict Resolution, and I – partially – blame Harvey Specter from the series Suits. That’s why, I would like to pursue a graduate degree in this field, as my post-pandemic plan! In my free time, I always enjoy indulging in benevolent work, reading, traveling, and going on long road trips. Within my alma matter, I am involved in numerous clubs that helped me grow as person. Most importantly, I dedicate a lot of my time to Model United Nations, being the current AUBMUN Vice President. Ever since I was 15 years old, I have participated in multiple national and international conferences as a delegate, as a trainer, and as a chair. I love the thrill of a good competition and also love to help people gain the skills I acquired over these 6 years. In times when we’re having little to no human interactions, some MUN strangers can really become your dearest friends. On this note, shoutout to the Vice President Tala and Court Administrator John that are two brilliant people I had the honor to work with! Having a good team is what makes a great conference. We are all going through a global pandemic, so I am already congratulating you for making an effective step in joining us! As my favorite Einstein quote says, “In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.” Whatever you are going through and wherever you come from, taking this opportunity will make you grow as person. Since the ICJ has a rather unusual set of rules of procedures, I challenge you to put your regular MUN tactics, personal and political opinions aside, and commit to tackle the Certain Iranian Assets Case as a neutral body, with an attention to what legal stances your colleagues will bring to the table. Scrutinizing this case will give us an idea on its possible verdict and repercussions on the entirety of the world! I hope we can find an effective solution to our case and can all leave the conference proud of the outcome we made. I look forward to meeting all of you and deliberate this topic in all its complexities. As the President of the Court, I, on my honor, pledge to deliver the most interesting experience you’ll ever encounter! I commit to making this virtual conference one you’ll remember! Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on [email protected] Sincerely, ICJ President Stephanie Nassar 7 Committee Overview The International Court of Justice A. History1 of the ICJ: Mandate and Functions The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in June 1945, after the San Francisco Conference2. It was meant to succeed the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), after witnessing a decrease in its work, culminating in World War II. There had been pre- existing calls for the re-establishment of an international court under the mandate of the newly formed UN, hence the formation of “the Court.” Today, the International Court of Justice is one of the United Nations’ six main organs. Its sole purpose is to settle disputes between states transmitted from a case and give advisory opinions after certain legal questions arise in international law, being the “only court of a universal character with general jurisdiction.”1 The ICJ is the only main UN organ that is not located in New York. Seated at the Peace
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions As Countermeasures for Wrongful Acts
    The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions as Countermeasures for Wrongful Acts Lori Fisler Damrosch* INTRODUCTION This essay offers aN iNstallmeNt of what would have beeN a coNtiNuiNg conversation with David D. Caron, a close colleague in the field of international law, oN themes that eNgaged both of us across multiple phases of our intersecting careers. The issues are fundamental ones for both the theory and the practice of internatioNal law, involving such core coNcerns as how iNterNatioNal law caN be enforced in an international system that is not yet adequately equipped with institutioNs to determine the existeNce aNd coNsequeNces of violatioNs or to impose saNctioNs against violators; aNd how to eNsure that self-help enforcement measures iN a largely deceNtralized aNd still iNcomplete system are coNsisteNt with the priNciples aNd values uNderlyiNg the iNterNatioNal legal order. David CaroN was uNiquely positioNed to speak aNd write oN these issues, Not oNly with a mature scholar’s authority, but also with the authoritativeness conferred by the judicial appointmeNts he held in receNt years aNd the cases oN which he would have deliberated and rendered judgments, but for his untimely death. Without his eloquent voice to provide wisdom aNd reach decisioNs iN the coNtext of coNcrete disputes, I venture still-evolving thoughts on what may well seem unanswerable questions. The topic of ecoNomic saNctioNs as couNtermeasures for iNterNatioNally wroNgful acts provides the opportuNity to revisit questioNs that I eNcouNtered for the first time as a braNd-new international lawyer in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. DepartmeNt of State; these questioNs would later eNgage David CaroN’s iNterest as well.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use
    The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Updated July 14, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45618 SUMMARY R45618 The International Emergency Economic Powers July 14, 2020 Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Christopher A. Casey, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad Coordinator authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national Analyst in International emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at Trade and Finance the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions Ian F. Fergusson are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a Specialist in International declared emergency. Trade and Finance Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 Dianne E. Rennack to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First Specialist in Foreign Policy World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a Legislation national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means Jennifer K. Elsea to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block Legislative Attorney international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Reference
    Thesis The role of national courts in applying international humanitarian law: from apology to judicial activism WEILL, Sharon Abstract My PhD aims to set a method of analysis evaluating the manner in which national courts enforce international humanitarian law in light of the core principles of the international rule of law (which require courts to be independent, impartial, accessible and effective). This methodology offers a useful tool for understanding the function of national courts and provides a mapping of courts' rulings, within which each category can then be legally (and politically) justified or delegitimized in light of the principles of the rule of law. The scale according to which the court's function is assessed varies from apology to judicial activism, and it identifies four functional roles: (1) the apologist role of courts, in which they serve as a legitimating agency of the state's actions; (2) the avoiding role of courts, in which they, for policy considerations, avoid exercising jurisdiction over a case; (3) the normative application role of courts, in which they apply international humanitarian law as required by the rule of law. In that category, a deferral technique is identified – courts may defer back to the other branches of [...] Reference WEILL, Sharon. The role of national courts in applying international humanitarian law: from apology to judicial activism. Thèse de doctorat : Univ. Genève, 2012, no. D. 852 URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-235753 DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:23575 Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:23575 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 7 International Organizations
    Table of Contents CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................................. 215 International Organizations ..................................................................................................... 215 A. UNITED NATIONS .......................................................................................................... 215 1. Upholding International Law while Maintaining International Peace and Security ........ 215 2. Rule of Law...................................................................................................................... 217 3. Charter Committee ........................................................................................................... 218 B. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ................................................................... 220 1. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States) ..................... 220 2. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. United States) ................................................................. 227 3. Relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States) ..................... 234 4. Request for Advisory Opinion on the British Indian Ocean Territory ............................ 235 C. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION .................................................................... 251 1. ILC Draft Conclusions on the Identification of Customary International Law ............... 251 2. ILC’s Work at its 70th Session ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ccg-Nlud-Technology-And-National
    CENTRE FOR COMMUNICATION GOVERNANCE AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY LAW AND POLICY SEMINAR COURSE (FEBRUARY - JUNE 2020) B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) PROGRAMME NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI Course Facilitator Gunjan Chawla Programme Manager, Technology and National Security, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi; email: [email protected] ABOUT THE COURSE Given the rapidly evolving landscape of international security issues and the challenges and opportunities presented by new and emerging technologies, Indian lawyers and policymakers need to acquire the capacity to engage effectively with national security law and policy. However, curricula in Indian law schools do not engage adequately with issues of national security. National security threats, balance of power, issues of secrecy and political accountability, terrorism and surveillance laws tend to be discussed in a piece-meal manner within various courses or electives. To fill this knowledge gap within the legal community, the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi (CCG-NLU) is offering this seminar course to fourth and fifth-year students of the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Programme. The course will explore interdisciplinary approaches in the study of national security law and policy, with a particular focus on issues in cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. Through this course curriculum, we aim to (1) recognize and develop National Security Law as a discrete discipline of legal studies, and (2) impart
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— BANK MELLI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL BENNETT, et al., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— LISA W. BOHL JEFFREY A. LAMKEN MOLOLAMKEN LLP ROBERT K. KRY 300 N. LaSalle St. Counsel of Record Chicago, Illinois 60654 MOLOLAMKEN LLP (312) 450-6700 The Watergate, Suite 660 600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 556-2000 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner :,/621(3(635,17,1*&2,1&± ±:$6+,1*721'& QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) provides that “the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party)” are subject to execution to satisfy certain terrorism judgments. 28 U.S.C. §1610 note §201(a). In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit allowed plaintiffs with default judgments against Iran to execute against funds that Visa owes to Bank Melli, an Iranian state-owned bank. It did so even though Visa rather than Bank Melli is the owner of the assets, and even though Bank Melli is a separate entity distinct from the Iranian government that had no role in the underlying disputes. The questions presented are: 1. Whether TRIA requires that the respondent actu- ally own the assets at issue, as the D.C. Circuit has held and as the United States has repeatedly urged, or whether the statute instead permits execution even absent owner- ship, as the Ninth Circuit held below.
    [Show full text]
  • CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN V
    Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice 231. CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) [PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS] Summary of the judgment of 13 February 2019 On 13 February 2019, the International Court of Justice rendered its Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the United States of America in the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The Court was composed as follows: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Gaja, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa; Judges ad hoc Brower, Momtaz; Registrar Couvreur. * * * History of the proceedings (paras. 1-17) The Court recalls that, on 14 June 2016, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereinafter “Iran” or the “Applicant”) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America (hereinafter the “United States” or the “Respondent”) with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violations by the United States of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, which was signed by the two States in Tehran on 15 August 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957 (hereinafter the “Treaty of Amity” or “Treaty”). The Court notes that, in its Application, Iran seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity. The Court further recalls that, after Iran filed its Memorial in the case, the United States raised preliminary objections to the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice
    The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 20 (2021) 395–441 brill.com/lape Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice Fernando Lusa Bordin Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK [email protected] Abstract The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. Those developments comprise jurisdiction ratione materiae under compromissory clauses; procedural preconditions in compromissory clauses; expert opinions; admissibility challenges based on abuse of process and the “clean hands” doctrine; conditions for the indication of provisional measures; and the Court’s discretion to give advisory opinions in cases where a request overlaps with a dispute between States. Keywords International Court of Justice – compromissory clause – jurisdiction ratione materiae – admissibility – abuse of process – “clean hands” doctrine 1 Introduction The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. The Court had the occasion to consider several procedural matters in its judg- ments on preliminary objections in Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), © Fernando Lusa Bordin, 2021 | doi:10.1163/15718034-12341451 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com09/28/2021 02:39:38PM via free access 396 Bordin Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v.
    [Show full text]
  • International Court of Justice Handbook
    INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 1 INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 2 ISBN 978-92-1-157364-0 Sales number No de vente : 1162 INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 3 The International Court of Justice Handbook INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 4 INT Handbook 2019.qxp_Mise en page 1 06/11/2019 09:35 Page 5 Foreword The role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has its seat in The Hague (Netherlands), is to settle in accordance with international law disputes submitted to it by States. In addition, certain international organs and agencies are entitled to call upon it for advisory opinions. Also known as the “World Court”, the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was set up in June 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations and began its activities in April 1946. The ICJ is the highest court in the world and the only one with both general and universal jurisdiction : it is open to all Member States of the United Nations and, subject to the provisions of its Statute, may entertain any question of inter- national law. The ICJ should not be confused with the other — mostly criminal — interna- tional judicial institutions based in The Hague, which were established much more recently, for example the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, an ad hoc court created by the Security Council and which operated from 1993 to 2017) or the International Criminal Court (ICC, the first permanent inter- national criminal court, established by treaty, which does not belong to the United Nations system).
    [Show full text]
  • 3 February 2021 Judgment Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republ
    3 FEBRUARY 2021 JUDGMENT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE 1955 TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) ___________ VIOLATIONS ALLÉGUÉES DU TRAITÉ D’AMITIÉ, DE COMMERCE ET DE DROITS CONSULAIRES DE 1955 (RÉPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D’IRAN c. ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE) 3 FÉVRIER 2021 ARRÊT TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-23 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 24-38 II. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT RATIONE MATERIAE UNDER ARTICLE XXI OF THE TREATY OF AMITY 39-84 1. First preliminary objection to jurisdiction: the subject-matter of the dispute 42-60 2. Second preliminary objection to jurisdiction: “third country measures” 61-83 III. ADMISSIBILITY OF IRAN’S APPLICATION 85-96 IV. OBJECTIONS ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE XX, PARAGRAPH 1 (B) AND (D), OF THE TREATY OF AMITY 97-113 OPERATIVE CLAUSE 114 ___________ INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2021 2021 3 February General List No. 175 3 February 2021 ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE 1955 TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Factual background. 1955 Treaty of Amity in force on date of filing of Application Iran party to 1968 Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons International Atomic Energy Agency and Security Council critical of Iran’s nuclear activities Security Council resolutions on Iranian nuclear issue Iran subject to nuclear-related “additional sanctions” by United States Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) concerning nuclear programme of Iran concluded on 14 July 2015 Revocation of certain United States nuclear-related “sanctions” under Executive Order 13716 of 16 January 2016 Participation of United States in JCPOA terminated under National Security Presidential Memorandum of 8 May 2018 Reimposition by United States of “sanctions” on Iran, its nationals and companies under Executive Order 13846 of 6 August 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Mpilux Research Paper Series 2020 (1), [
    Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series | N° 1 (2020) The Aftermath of the 9/11 Litigation: Enforcing the US Havlish Judgments in Europe Dr Stephanie Law Lecturer in Law University of Southampton Dr Vincent Richard Senior Research Fellow Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Dr Edoardo Stoppioni Senior Research Fellow Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Ms Martina Mantovani Research Fellow Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law www.mpi.lu The ‘MPI Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series’ gathers pre-publication versions of academic articles, book chapters, or reviews as well as intermediary research reports on various legal issues. All manuscripts are offered on the Institute’s website as well as our SSRN webpage and are released by each author in the interest of advancing scholarship. The quality of the research papers is guaranteed by a rigorous internal review, and final approval is given by at least one of the Directors of the Institute. The content is the responsibility of individual authors. Papers may be downloaded by individuals, for their own use, subject to the ordinary copyright rules. All rights reserved No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author(s) Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series ISSN: 2309-0227 4, rue Alphonse Weicker L-2721 Luxembourg www.mpi.lu The 9/11 Iranian Litigation in Luxembourg Courts: Private and Public International Law Stephanie Law, Vincent Richard, Edoardo Stoppioni and Martina Mantovani Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Article last updated: December 2019 Abstract The paper takes stock of the attempts made by the families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to enforce, in Europe, the judgment rendered by the Southern District Court of New York in In Re Terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Fiona Havlish and others v Usama Bin Laden and others.
    [Show full text]
  • The Due Process and Other Constitutional Rights of Foreign Nations
    ARTICLE THE DUE PROCESS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS Ingrid Wuerth* The rights of foreign states under the U.S. Constitution are becoming more important as the actions of foreign states and foreign state-owned enterprises expand in scope and the legislative protections to which they are entitled contract. Conventional wisdom and lower court cases hold that foreign states are outside our constitutional order and that they are protected neither by separation of powers nor by due process. As a matter of policy, however, it makes little sense to afford litigation-related constitutional protections to foreign corporations and individuals but to deny categorically such protections to foreign states. Careful analysis shows that the conventional wisdom and lower court cases are wrong for reasons that change our basic understanding of both Article III and due process. Foreign states are protected by Article III’s extension of judicial power to foreign-state diversity cases, designed to protect foreign states from unfair proceedings and to prevent international conflict. The Article III “judicial power” over “cases” imposes procedural limitations on federal courts that we today associate with due process. In particular, Article III presupposes both personal jurisdiction and notice for all defendants, not just foreign states. Under the Fifth Amendment, foreign states are “persons” due the same constitutional “process” to which other defendants are entitled. “Process” only reaches defendants within the sovereign power, or jurisdiction,
    [Show full text]