Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:50:32.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FSIA Terrorist-Exception Cases in 2002

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Sean D. Murphy
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
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 4 , October 2002 , pp. 964 - 967
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

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 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, §221,110 Stat. 1214, 1241. For more information on other FSIA cases utilizing the 1996 amendment, see Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 93 AJIL 181 (1999), 94 AJIL 117 (2000), 95 AJIL 134 (2001).

2 28 U.S.C. §§1605(a) (7), 1610(a)(7) (2000).

3 28 U.S.C. §1605 (2000).

4 28 U.S.C. §1605 note (2000).

5 For the facts as recounted before the U.S. district court, see Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 110 F.Supp.2d 10 (D.D.C. 2000).

6 Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82, 87 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

7 Id. at 94. The FSIA adopts the definition of hostage taking used in the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, Dec. 17, 1979, TIAS 11,081, 1316UNTS205 (defining the offense, in pertinent part, as the seizure or detention of a person coupled with a threat to continue to detain that person “in order to compel a third party . . . to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit condition for the release of the hostage”).

8 Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d at 94.

9 U.S. Const, amend. V (emphasis added).

10 28 U.S.C. §1608 (2000).

11 28 U.S.C. §13S0(b) (2000).

12 See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

13 Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d at 96.

14 Id. at 96-97.

15 Id. at 98-99 (citations omitted).

16 Id. at 99.

17 Id. (citing DKT Mem’l Fund Ltd. v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 887 F.2d 275, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1989)).

18 Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 175 F.Supp.2d 36, 37 (D.D.C. 2001).

19 Id. at 39.

20 Id. at 38 n.4 (quoting 28 U.S.C. §1608(e) (1994)).

21 Two other cases had already been brought by victims of the same attack. See Eisenfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 172 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000); Mousa v. Iran, C.A. No. 00-2096, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24316 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2001).

22 Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 184 F. Supp.2d 13 (2002).

23 Stethem v. Islamic Republic oflran, 201 F.Supp.2d 78, 80 (2002).

24 Id. at 85.

25 Id. at 87-93.

26 Ungar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 211 F.Supp.2d 91 (D.D.C. 2002).

27 Id. at 98.

28 Id. at 99-100.