Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:48:46.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Remarks by Michael J. Edney

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Michael J. Edney*
Affiliation:
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Human Rights Law, Foreign Sovereign Immunity, and National Courts
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

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 Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 487-88 (1983).

2 Id. at 488.

3 See, e.g., Nat’l City Bank of New York v. Republic of China, 348 U.S. 356 (1955).

4 See Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 690 (2004).

5 Verlinden, 461 U.S. at 488.

6 See Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, 137 (1812).

7 State Immunity Act, 1978, c. 33, § 15.

8 See State Immunity Act, R.S.C., ch. S-18, § 15 (1985) (Canada); State Immunity Act § 17 (1979) (Singapore); State Immunity Ordinance § 16 (1981) (Pakistan); Foreign States Immunities Act § 16 (1981) (South Africa).

9 See generally Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

10 Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 373-74 (1951).

11 Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 479 (2003); see also Altmann, 541 U.S. at 696.

12 Nat’l City Bank of New York, 348 U.S. at 362.

13 See Altmann, 541 U.S. at 729-30 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (immunity principles should account for how foreign states “shape their conduct” through diplomatic exchanges).