No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi, 129 S.Ct. 1732
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
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.
- Type
- International Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2009 by The American Society of International Law
References
1 129 S.Ct. 1732 (2009).
2 Ministry of Def. & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., 495 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2007).
3 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, §201(a), 116 Stat. 2337.
4 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 §2002(d)(5)(B), amended by Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, supra note 2, §201(c)(4), 116 Stat. 2339.
5 Elahi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 F.Supp.2d 97, 103 (D.D.C. 2000).
6 For a comprehensive overview of these developments, see Jennifer, K. Elsea, Lawsuits Against State Supporters of Terrorism: An Overview, Cong. Res. Serv. Rep. RL 31258 (2008)Google Scholar, at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL31258.pdf.
7 Michael Reisman, W. & Monica, Hakimi, 2001 Hugo Black Lecture: Illusion and Reality in the Compensation of Victims of International Terrorism, 54 Ala. L. Rev. 561, 573 (2003)Google Scholar. In fact, most of over $19 billion in damages remains uncollected. See Elsea, supra note 6, at 2 (noting scarcity of assets and executive branch opposition to attachment of frozen assets and diplomatic property).
8 495 F.3d at 1037, 1038–39 (explaining that “an issue is ‘in question’ or ‘at issue’ in a dispute even if it is not the subject of a merits determination. The effect of the Cubic judgment on the financial liability of the United States will be raised and adjudicated; that is sufficient to put the property ‘in question.’”).
9 28 U.S.C. §§1602–1611 (2000).
10 P.L. 104–132, Title II, §221, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (subsequently reincorporated at §1605A)).
11 Elsea, supra note 6, at 2.
12 See id. at 26–32; see generally Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:00CV03110 (ESQ (D.D.C. filed Dec. 29, 2000).
13 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–181, 122 Stat. 3 (2008) (codified at 28 U.S.C. §1605A); w also Elsea, supra note 6, at 4 8 – 6 2 (describing changes effected by section 1605A, signed into law only after it addressed the concerns about its predicted negative impact on Iraq’s reconstruction efforts (which motivated the presidential veto of the first version)).
14 453 U.S. 654(1981).
15 See Appellant–Petitioner’s Brief (No. 07–615) (Sept. 8, 2008), 2007 U.S. Briefs 615 at *36–37 (citing Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804) and its progeny). The briefs for the Supreme Court case are available at http://vvTvw.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/jan09.shtml.
16 453 U.S. at 679 (quoting United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 225 (1942)), 683 (citing Pink, 315 U.S. at 229–30).
17 See Elsea, supra note 6, at 44.
18 United States Amicus Brief (No. 07–615) (Sept. 15, 2008), 2007 U.S. Briefs 615 at *19.
19 Appellant–Petitioner’s Brief (No. 07–615) (Sept. 8, 2008), 2007 U.S. Briefs 615 at 42 (quoting Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 673).
20 Appellant–Petitioner’s Brief (No. 07–615) (Sept. 8, 2008), 2007 U.S. Briefs 615 at 25.