1 Halberstam, , Sabbatino Resurrected: The Act of State Doctrine in the Revised Restatement of U.S. Foreign Relations Law, 79 AJIL 68 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 (1976).

3 See 422 U.S. 1005(1975).

4 The State Department’s Legal Adviser, Monroe Leigh, wrote a separate communication, stating that the Department would not anticipate embarrassment to the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States if the Court should decide to overrule the holding in Sabbatino. This position was not, however, incorporated into the brief of the Solicitor General.

5 Justice Powell, who had said in First National City Bank of New York v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 406 U.S. 759, 774 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring), that he disagreed with the Court’s opinion in Sabbatino, said so again in a one-paragraph opinion in Dunhill, but seems to have made no effort to win the Court to his view. 425 U.S. at 715.

6 First Nat’l City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983).

7 For the latest illustration of reliance on the territorial limitation, see Allied Bank Int’l v. Banco Credito Agricola de Cartago, 757 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1985).

8 See First Nat’l City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983); First Nat’l City Bank of New York v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 406 U.S. 759 (1972).

9 Compare Perez v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 61 N.Y.2d 460, 474 N.Y.S.2d 689, 463 N.E.2d 5 (1984) (act of state doctrine applied to relieve bank of liability on a certificate of deposit issued in Cuba) with Garcia v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 735 F.2d 645 (2d Cir. 1984) (act of state doctrine not applied because obligation deemed situated outside of Cuba). See also, e.g., Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 976 (1982) (act of state defense rejected and bank held liable to depositor at Saigon branch).

10 See, e.g., Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., 550 F.2d 68 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 984 (1977); Clayco Petroleum Corp. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 712 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1983).

11 International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM) v. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), 649 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1163(1982).

12 Cf. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 428 (1964).

13 Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897).

14 Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised) §469 (Tentative Draft No. 6, 1985). By comparison, §428, contained in Tentative Draft No. 4 (1983), read: “Subject to §429 [dealing with the so-called Hickenlooper Amendment], courts in the United States will refrain from examining the validity of an act of a foreign state taken in its sovereign capacity within the state’s own territory.”

15 See, e.g., the exception for commercial transactions set forth in part HI of Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 695-706 (1976), concurred in by only four of the five Justices making up the majority in that case, but not by Justice Stevens.