Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:56:49.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ministry of Supply, Cairo v. Universe Tankships, Inc. 708 F.2d 80

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 232 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d) and (e) provide:

(d) A “commercial activity” means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.

(e) A “commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state” means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States.

2 In support of its reading of the first clause of § 1605(a)(2), the court referred to the legislative history of the FSIA. See H.R. Rep. No. 1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 6604, 6615–16. The court also emphasized that the wheat was carried from a U.S. port on a vessel chartered under bills of lading executed pursuant to U.S. law, i.e., the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (46 U.S.C. §1300 et seq.).

3 Section 1607 of the FSIA provides:

In any action brought by a foreign state, or in which a foreign state intervenes, in a court of the United States or of a State, the foreign state shall not be accorded immunity with respect to any counterclaim—

(a) for which a foreign state would not be entitled to immunity under section 1605 of this chapter had such claim been brought in a separate action against the foreign state; or

(b) arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the claim of the foreign state; or

(c) to the extent that the counterclaim does not seek relief exceeding in amount or differing in kind from that sought by the foreign state.

4 708 F.2d 80, 86.

5 Id. (quoting §1602 of the FSIA).

6 H.R. Rep. No. 1487, supra note 2.

7 708 F.2d at 86.

8 678 F.2d 1150 (2d Cir. 1982).

9 Id. at 1160, quoted in 708 F.2d at 87.

10 See Note, Effects Jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Due Process Clause, 55 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 474 (1980).