Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:35:39.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity of Foreign State Property from Attachment or Execution in the USA*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Stanley D. Metzger
Get access

Extract

Seldom has the law changed as dramatically in any country on a matter affecting international relations as has the law of the United States very recently on the subject of this yearbook: the immunity of foreign state property from attachment or execution. This change has been both procedural and substantive. The changing instrument has been a federal statute, the “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976” (Public Law 94–583, 94th Congress, 90 Stat. 2891), which took effect on 19 January 1977.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 10 , December 1979 , pp. 131 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1979

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. 271 US 526 (1926).

2. 7 Cranch 116 (US 1812).

3. Libelling is an Admiralty practice involving seizure at the commencement of a suit.

4. Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 US 30 (1945).

5. Art. XVIII (2), Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and Japan, Treaties and other International Agreements Series (TI.A.S.) 2863. See also, “The Immunities of the State and Government Economic Activities”, by Setser, Vernon G., 24 Law and Contemp. Prob. (Duke), 291 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a history and analysis of this FCN provision.

6. 26 Dept. of State Bulletin 984 (1952).

7. 336 F.2d 354 (2d Circ. 1964).

8. Ex parte Peru (The Ucayali), 318 US 578 (1943).

9. Ex parte Muir, 254 US 522 (1921).

10. Dexter and Carpenter v. Kunglig Jarnvagsstgrelsen, 43 F.2d 70S (2d Circ. 1930).

11. See State Department's suggestion in New York and Cuba Mail SS Co. v. Republic of Korea, 132 F. Supp. 684 (SD NY 1955). See also Stephen v. Zivnostenka Banka, 15 App. Div. 2d Ill., 222 NYS 2d 128 (1st Deft. 1961).

12. E.g., Sec. 2 and 3 of PL 94–583.

13. Title 28, United States Code, was amended by adding Chap. 97, Sec. 1602–1611. References are to these sections.

14. Sec. 1603 (a) and (b).

15. Sec. 1603 (d).

16. Report No. 94–1310, 18th Cong. 2d sess. at 15–16, 26. Also see Sec. 1610 (d)(2).

17. Sec. 1608.

18. N. 15, at p. 9.

19. Sec. 1610 (c).

20. Sec. 1608 (e) requires that a court withhold entry of judgment by default against a foreign state “unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court”.

21. N. 16 at p. 30.

22. Sec. 1611 (b)(2).

23. N. 15 at pp. 30–31.