Claims by and against foreign actors in U.S. court

nutmegdoctrine's version from 2016-05-15 03:20


Question Answer
Banco Nacional v. SabbatinoCourt invokes act of state doctrine to decline to decide whether the Cuban government violated international law in expropriating the company. Reason: separation of powers.
Kirkpatrick & Co. Act of State Doctrine doesn't cover a finding that bribery occurred because doesn't involve ruling whether that bribe illegal or wrong under nigerian law.
FSIACodifies restrictive theory of Sov. Immunity: It exists except for actions of states that are commercial in nature and occur in U.S. or have effects felt here, or for expropriations of property.
SamantarFSIA doesn't make foreign officials immune.
Republic of Argentina v. WeltoverFound issuing of BONODS was commercial activity so investors could sue Argentina in U.S. Court.
Saudi Arabia v. NelsonTorture in response to complaint about conditions in hospital not commercial activity. Concurrence: Injuries to one American not enough anyway to be "effects felt in the U.s."
AvenaICJ judgment against U.S. saying violated VCCR by not notifying Mexican consulate upon arresting nationals.
MedellinS. court says ICJ judgment not directly enforceable in u.s. b/c non self-executing. Cites UN charter "undertake to comply." Pres' memo directing to comply with ICJ judgment doesn't have force b/c pres. can't turn non-self-executing law into self-exec. one.
Sosa v. Alvarez-MachainAny new causes of action under the ATS have to have the same universality and specificity as norms of IL as original ones (infringing rights of ambassadors; piracy)
KiobelClaim under ATS needs to touch and concern U.S. to overcome presumption against extraterritoriality.