No. 16-1094 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States REPUBLIC OF SUDAN, Petitioner, v. RICK HARRISON, ET AL., Respondents. On a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE INTERNATIONAL LAW PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER GEORGE A. BERMANN DAVID P. STEWART Jerome Greene Hall Georgetown University Law Columbia Law School Center 435 West 116th Street 600 New Jersey Ave. N.W. New York, NY 10027 Washington, DC 20001 (212) 854-4258 (202) 662-9927 JARED L. HUBBARD (Counsel of Record) FITCH LAW PARTNERS LLP One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 (617) 542-5542 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve process upon the head of the ministry of foreign affairs under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by a mailing “through,” “via,” or “care of” the foreign state’s diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iv INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5 I. THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS DISALLOWS SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A STATE VIA ITS EMBASSY.............................................. 5 II. CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATES SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A STATE’S MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ................ 13 III. THIS COURT SHOULD CONSTRUE THE FSIA SO AS NOT TO CONFLICT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW ........................ 16 IV. SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN EMBASSY REQUIRES “CONSENT OF THE HEAD OF THE MISSION” ...................... 19 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 24 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued APPENDIX Appendix A: List of Amici Curiae ............................ 1a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) .......................... 12 Benz v. Compania Navera Hidalgo, S.A, 353 U.S. 138 (1957) ............................................... 17, 18 Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536 (1884) ................................................................. 17 Freedom Watch, Inc. v. OPEC, 766 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................................... 21, 22 Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Moore, 345 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1965) ....................................8, 9, 22, 23 Kumar v. Republic of Sudan, 880 F.3d 144, 154 (4th Cir. 2018) .......................................... 2, 3 McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10 (1963) ...................... 17 Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804) ................................................ 4, 16 Prewitt Enters. v. OPEC, 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 2003) ..................................................... 21, 22 Sumitomo Shoji Am. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (1982) .......................................................... 13 Tachiona v. United States, 386 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................................................. 8 v Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 33 (1982)............. 17 FOREIGN CASES Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraqi Airways Co. & Republic of Iraq [1995] 1 WLR 1147 ................. 11 La société NML Capital v. La République argentine, Cour de cassation [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., March 28, 2013, Judgment No. 394 .............................. 14 Sebina v. South African High Commission 2010 3 BLR 723 IC ............................................. 12 Sistem Mühendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Kyrgyz Republic, [2015] 126 O.R. (3d) 545 (Can. Ont. C.A.) ................... 12 Village Holdings Sdn. Bhd. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (1988) 2 MLJ 656 ...................................................................... 12 Wallishauser v. Austria, Application No. 156/04, Judgment, 19 November 2012 (ECtHR) ............................................................. 14 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1608 .................................. 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 19 Malawi Immunities and Privileges Act 1984 § 14(1) .................................................................... 15 vi PL 94–583 (HR 11315), PL 94–583, October 21, 1976, 90 Stat 2891(1) ............................................. 16 Singapore State Immunity Act 2014, Ch. 313, § 14(1) ................................................................. 15 UK State Immunity Act 1978, Ch. 33, § 12(1) ........ 14 TREATIES European Convention on State Immunity, ETS No. 074, Art. 16(2) ...................................... 14 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 21 U.S.T. 77, TIAS 6820 (1969) ................................ 3 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 23 U.S.T. 3227, TIAS 7502 (1972) .............. passim United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, G.A. Res. 59/38, Annex, U.N. Doc. A/RES/59/38 (Dec. 2, 2004) .......................... 13, 14 United Nations Headquarters Agreement, Art. III, § 9, available at 22 U.S.C. § 287 ................. 21 OTHER AUTHORITIES Anderson, Matthew Smith, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450-1919 (Longman, 1993) ..................................................................... 6 Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (4th ed. 2016) ..................................... 11 vii Gamal Badr, State Immunity: An Analytical and Prognostic View 214 (1984) ........................ 15 H.R. Rep. No. 94–1487, at 2 (1976), as reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6605 ........................... 4. 18 ILC Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, ILC Yearbook, 1991, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 60, §§ 1-3 ................................................................... 15 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 115 (Am. Law Inst. 1986) .......................................................... 16 Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law: Jurisdiction Treaties § 109 TD No 1 (2016) ................................................................. 16 U.S. State Department, What is a U.S. Embassy?, https://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplom acy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm ........... 8, 20 United Nations Treaty Collection, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.a spx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III- 3&chapter=3&clang=_en ..................................... 6 United States Mission Vacancy Announcement: Mailroom Clerk, https://ca.usembassy.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/27/2016/04/16-44- Mailroom-Clerk-Toronto.pdf .............................. 21 1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 Amici curiae listed in the Appendix are law professors and scholars at U.S. law schools who teach, research, and write about international law, both public and private. They share a common view that United States courts must properly apply international treaties to which the United States is a party, thereby adhering to its international legal obligations. INTRODUCTION This case involves a $314 million default judgment rendered against a foreign sovereign based upon two crucial conclusions of law: (1) that a foreign embassy is a proper conduit for service of process under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3); and (2) that acceptance of a mail parcel by an embassy’s mail room constitutes “consent of the head of the mission” to receive service of process under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (“VCDR”), 23 U.S.T. 3227, TIAS 7502 (1972). Each of these conclusions of law is erroneous and jeopardizes long- held principles of international law, practice, and diplomacy critical to the foreign policy of the United States. Amici curiae submit this brief to elaborate on the reasons why an embassy is not a proper 1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for amici states that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. The parties have provided the Clerk letters granting blanket consented to the filing of amicus briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2. 2 conduit for service of process on a foreign sovereign and why a mail room’s acceptance of a parcel cannot constitute consent to service by other means. The FSIA provides that service on a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) must be made by “any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned.” The statute thus identifies a specific recipient, and the question is whether the recipient—the “head of the ministry of foreign affairs”—should be served where he or she is actually located—“the ministry of foreign affairs”—or may be served at a location where that official is rarely if ever present—namely, the foreign sovereign’s diplomatic mission in the United States. Amici agree with Petitioner that the plain reading of the statute is that service must occur at the ministry of foreign affairs. It is well accepted that the provisions of § 1608(a) require “strict compliance.” See, e.g., Kumar v. Republic of Sudan, 880 F.3d 144, 154 (4th Cir. 2018) (observing that “based on §1608(a)’s four precise methods