Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Acts of State, State Immunity, and Judicial Review in the United States

Acts of State, State Immunity, and Judicial Review in the United States AbstractThe doctrine of the Act of State and State Immunity has its foundation in common law frameworks. It is settled law that there is no cause of action that will make a foreign state liable in the domestic court of another country. In the United States there has been acceptance that certain cases involve “political questions” that are non-justiciable, as they are not a “case or controversy” as required by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The courts have only intervened either where the federal statutes have applied extraterritorially, such as under the Civil Rights Act 1964 where a U.S. citizen is employed abroad by a company registered in the United States, or under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) 1789, which protects foreign parties who are designated sufficiently “alien” for the sole purpose of invoking jurisdiction after a civil wrong has been committed against them. There needs to be an evaluation of the U.S. Supreme Court precedents that have asserted judicial oversight in respect of wrongs committed extra-territorially, and their present rationale for retaining the doctrine. This paper also discusses the scope of the Federal State Immunity Act (FSIA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) that narrow the concept of state immunity when dealing with terrorism by another state or its agents. A comparative analysis with the state immunity doctrine in Canada and the framework for litigation under the merits-based approach by the courts is provided. The common law courts have developed the doctrine of the Act of State and it has become a principle of customary international law. The argument of this paper is that there needs to be a greater focus on the civil injuries that are caused in other jurisdictions that should allow the claimants to litigate in the forum court and for judicial review to be available. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png British Journal of American Legal Studies de Gruyter

Acts of State, State Immunity, and Judicial Review in the United States

British Journal of American Legal Studies , Volume 7 (1): 30 – May 30, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/degruyter/acts-of-state-state-immunity-and-judicial-review-in-the-united-states-vM6uMyZhb0

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
© 2018 Zia Akthar, published by Sciendo
ISSN
2049-4092
eISSN
2049-4092
DOI
10.2478/bjals-2018-0006
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractThe doctrine of the Act of State and State Immunity has its foundation in common law frameworks. It is settled law that there is no cause of action that will make a foreign state liable in the domestic court of another country. In the United States there has been acceptance that certain cases involve “political questions” that are non-justiciable, as they are not a “case or controversy” as required by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The courts have only intervened either where the federal statutes have applied extraterritorially, such as under the Civil Rights Act 1964 where a U.S. citizen is employed abroad by a company registered in the United States, or under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) 1789, which protects foreign parties who are designated sufficiently “alien” for the sole purpose of invoking jurisdiction after a civil wrong has been committed against them. There needs to be an evaluation of the U.S. Supreme Court precedents that have asserted judicial oversight in respect of wrongs committed extra-territorially, and their present rationale for retaining the doctrine. This paper also discusses the scope of the Federal State Immunity Act (FSIA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) that narrow the concept of state immunity when dealing with terrorism by another state or its agents. A comparative analysis with the state immunity doctrine in Canada and the framework for litigation under the merits-based approach by the courts is provided. The common law courts have developed the doctrine of the Act of State and it has become a principle of customary international law. The argument of this paper is that there needs to be a greater focus on the civil injuries that are caused in other jurisdictions that should allow the claimants to litigate in the forum court and for judicial review to be available.

Journal

British Journal of American Legal Studiesde Gruyter

Published: May 30, 2018

There are no references for this article.